Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 494 (JHR)

Har Narain Lakhotia v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-14

JAYA ROY

body2011
Order Learned counsel appearing for the C. B.I. has shown the status report given by the C.B.I. (Anti Corruption Branch) Ranchi in the matter of alleged irregularities and corruption and according to the learned counsel, the C.B.I. has obtained 2600 files out of which 700 files have been scrutinized and by now, 65 witnesses have been examined and at present they may be completing the investigation in four cases. Physical verification of the 20 spots by the expert team also has been conducted. 2. In view of the above, it is submitted that the C.B.I. will file challan immediately after completion of the investigation in the cases on that basis and therefore, this will be a continuous process which may take time and the C.B.I. will submit a report of completion of the investigation and their result as well as will submit the progress report not only for investigation but for filing the cases against the guilty persons. 3. In view of the above reasons, we return the report submitted by the C.B.I. so as to maintain the secrecy. 4. In view of the continuous process, we grant eight weeks time to the C.B.I. with clear instructions to proceed with utmost care and with promptness and long time given by this Court does not mean as a process to proceed slowly. I.A. No. 1733 of 2011 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the intervenor (Confederation of the Real Estate Developers Association of India, Jharkhand Chapter affiliated to Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India) pointing out that Jharkhand State has now come out with "Jharkhand Regularization of Unauthorized/Deviated Construction through compounding in Urban Areas Ordinance,2011" and in view of the subsequent development, the construction and deviation which have been made by the members of the federation of intervenor, they are eligible for regularization and this fact may be taken note by the C.B.I. during investigation. 6. 6. The C.B.I. is investigating into the criminality and not the civil rights of the parties and criminality which was in existence and was committed on particular date is required to be examined by the C.B.I. in accordance with law for taking appropriate action and the ordinance, as such, has no relevance for taking action because of the reason that the matter is under investigation to be conducted by the C.B.I. with respect to filing of the criminal cases against the erring officers etc. in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, we do not find any merit in I.A. No. 1733 of 2011 which is accordingly dismissed.