Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 130 (JHR)

Durga Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-24

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two cases i.e., R.C case No. 4 A of 2010 and R.C. Case No. 5 A of 2010 are the cases pending before the C.B.I., in view of the order of this Court dated 4.08.2010, which are arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew out attention to the earlier order dated 4.08.2009, wherein it has been observed that it could reasonably inferred that the allegation of the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets of respondent nos. 14 to 20 is correct even as per the Income Tax returns which have been field by them. However, the Court observed that further details in this regard will be furnished by the Income Tax Department to this court and thereafter opinion may be formed as to what are the steps to be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the observations of this Court with respect to having disproportionate assets with respondent nos. 14 to 20, the C.B.I should have enquired into the matter of possessing the disproportionate assets by respondent nos. 17, 18 and 20 against whom as per his information, no investigation is going on, either by the C.B.I or by the State Vigilance Department. 2. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the C.B.I has completed the investigation in R.C. Case No. 4 A of 2010 and submitted Challan paper in January, 2012 in the Court. However, in R.C case no. 5 A of 2010, interim charge-sheet has been filed against some of the accused and remaining investigation is about to complete and they are likely to take step forward in a short period of couple of days only. 3. After going through the various orders, we are of the considered opinion that the State Government may disclose whether any other Vigilance Case or any police case or any P.C. Case is registered against the respondent and the persons connected with them and involved in the same alleged illegal activity and if any of the case has been registered against the respondents of this petition and other persons, then what is the stage of investigation at the State Vigilance Agency level in the criminal cases. We may make it clear that two cases have been pointed out to be registered by the Vigilance Department, which are Special Case No. 69 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2010 and Special case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010. The facts of these cases are not on record and, therefore, the State may disclose whether these cases have also some relevance with the allegations levelled against these respondents or not. In either case, whether it has any relevance with the present controversy or otherwise also, the State Government may submit the status report of those cases i.e., Special Case No. 69 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2010 and Special case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010. The C.B.I is also directed to submit whether in continuation of Special case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010, the matter has been referred to the C.B.I and if so, then, the C.B.I. may state what is the progress in the said case. After getting all the facts in relation to these matter, an appropriate order may be passed with respect to the prayer made by the petitioner. However, we are making it clear pendency of this petition and because of this order the C.B.I may be free to look into the involvement of other persons i.e. respondents or other which the C.B.I found necessary in accordance with the investigation. 4. In view of the order dated 10.1.2012 (paragraph 8), Directorate of Enforcement has submitted a report in the matter of cases registered under the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act , 2005. As per the report, the Directorate of Enforcement has already submitted seven complaints before the Special Court against various accused persons till now, which has been mentioned in the chart at paragraph 4 of the report and according to the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement , there is involvement of total amount of Rs. 3536.34 crores. As already stated, this is the position till as on today as investigation is going on. 3536.34 crores. As already stated, this is the position till as on today as investigation is going on. As per the Directorate of Enforcement , the investigation outside the India, letters of request have been sent to Dubai, Indonesia, Thialand, Liberia and Swedan and in a matter pending investigation about the allegation relating to the money laundering to Dubai, the estimated business involving Rs. 200 crores approximately whereas in Liberia funds have been illegally transferred from India for purchasing the mines there and investigation is pending in relation to the money laundering to Thailand and Indonesia and these also relating to the mining operations. It has also been stated that Income Tax Department also has found several documents disclosing huge investments in various countries by the accused persons. Apart from above, the investigation is going on in India against 13 accused persons, names of which have been disclosed by the Directorate of Enforcement . It is also pointed out that one of the accused, Sanjay Choudhary has been arrested in UAE and his deportation to India is in process, which is being done by the C.B.I. The Directorate of Enforcement has also disclosed that proceedings against several accused as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the report is going on. 5. Since it is a matter involving very complex issues and collection of the evidence by various departments including Directorate of Enforcement , therefore, some time, as sought by the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement required to be given. However, by making it clear that investigation be completed expeditiously and further action be taken as early as possible. The report submitted by the Directorate of Enforcement may be kept in sealed cover by the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 6. It has been informed that learned counsel for the Income-Tax Department, Mr. Deepak Roshan is sick and therefore, has not come to the Court. However, report be submitted with respect to this controversy as well as the status of the case which may be pending before the Income Tax Department relating to the cases registered in view of the order passes by this Court. 7. Deepak Roshan is sick and therefore, has not come to the Court. However, report be submitted with respect to this controversy as well as the status of the case which may be pending before the Income Tax Department relating to the cases registered in view of the order passes by this Court. 7. On 19.12.2011 upon submitting an application in the form of I.A. No. 3673 of 2011, this Court noticed the allegations levelled by the petitioners wherein it has been alleged that the accused persons who have been arrested after initiation of C.B.I. enquiry in pursuance of the order of this Court and lodged in the jail in judicial custody including the former Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and some of the other ministers and other individuals, they are admitted in the Government hospital of the Ranchi i.e. RIMS and it has been alleged that these accused persons have been admitted in RIMS for no reason and by this methodology they are enjoining full freedom even when they are in judicial custody. This Court on the basis of the allegations levelled by the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2011 directed the Commandant, Namkum Military Hospital, Namkum to constitute a Medical Board of three doctors and I.G. (Prison), Jharkhand, Ranchi was directed to produce the said accused persons before the Medical Board of the said Military Hospital so as to obtain the medical opinion about the ailment of the accused persons. This order was complied with and the Medical Board was constituted by the Namkum Military Hospital, Namkum and a report was submitted. The respondents-accused raised objection with respect to the order dated 19.12.2011 as it was passed ex-parte and without giving copy of the Interlocutory Application filed by the writ petitioner. That objection was over ruled by order dated 10.01.2012 by this Court. However, such persons were given liberty to submit their comments on the report submitted by Military Hospital, Namkum,Ranchi and in response to it a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.19, Bhanu Pratap Shahi, who is former Health Minister of the State of Jharkhand, and now facing the criminal trial and challan paper has been submitted to try the said respondent no. 19. 8. 19. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.19 vehemently submitted that Rules have been framed for handling the situation like this of falling one sick in the prison and as per Rule 1162 of the Jail Manual a procedure is to be followed for treatment of the person lodged in the jail which has been truly and faithfully followed in the present case and the applicant, who himself voluntarily surrendered on 06.08.2011 and complained for pain in the body upon which he was taken to the RIMS for the first time on 11.09.2011. He was subjected to MRI and MRI report is dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure-R/8) and observation was given by the department of Radio-Diagnosis of RIMS, which is as under : “IMPRESSION: Early degenerative in the form of Dehydration with posterocentral herniation of C5-C6 IV disc causing mild effacement of epidural fat, however no compression on spinal cord seen”. Scanning report of the same accused is dated 19.09.2011, wherein observations are : “IMPRESSION: There is hyperintensity in supraspinatus muscle with subacromial effusion S/O Partial tear of supraspinatus tendon with subacromial joint effusion.” 9. It appears from the Annexure-R/8 dated 19.09.2011 that Medical Officer of the RIMS opined that respondent no. 19 may be examined out of RIMS by Dr. K.K. Sinha and for that permission was sought from the Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. Thereafter, it appears that a Medical Board was constituted consisting of five senior doctors of RIMS, who after examining the MRI report and finding that as per MRI report, there is Herniation of I.V Disc noted at C.5- C.6 Vertebral level Strengthening of Cervical Spine, therefore, the respondent no. 19 may be referred to AIIMS, New Delhi. On 28.11.2011, it was conveyed by the Superintendent of the Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi to the Director, RIMS, Ranchi that, for treatment of respondent no. 19 outside the State, recommendation is required at State level Board with a certificate that the treatment of such ailment is not possible in the State. 10. In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondent no. 19 submitted that it is a question of the life of a person and even if, he may be a person lodged in jail, he is entitled to adequate treatment from the doctors of his choice. In support of his contention that the respondent no. 10. In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondent no. 19 submitted that it is a question of the life of a person and even if, he may be a person lodged in jail, he is entitled to adequate treatment from the doctors of his choice. In support of his contention that the respondent no. 19 is entitled to better treatment by the doctor of his choice. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to Crl.M.P. No. 21278 of 2011 filed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 82 of 2011, wherein one of the accused in similar circumstances, a temporary bail was sought but that was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after observing that the said petitioner may opt for being treated in any hospital of his choice. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no. 19 submitted that respondent no. 19 is ready to bear all expenses of the AIIMS for getting his treatment in AIIMS and that can be done in view of the Medical Board opinion. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 19 vehemently assailed the report of Medical Board given by Military Hospital, Namkum, Ranchi and submitted that Namkum Military Hospital, Namkum has no adequate facility to examine the patient like the petitioner as there is no MRI facility and the Medical Board gave the opinion only on the basis of the blood and other Pathological tests. In view of the above, the opinion given by the Medical Board, Namkum Military Hospital, Namkum deserves to be rejected. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 21, Madhu Kora, former Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand, submitted that respondent no. 21 was admitted in hospital lastly on 31.10.2011 and before that he was four time admitted in hospital after his arrest on 30.11.2009. It is submitted that respondent no. 21 has suffered elbow fracture in jail and he needs physiotherapy regularly and he was admitted in RIMS for treatment. Now after the Court's order he is not allowed to go to RIMS for physiotherapy. It is prayed that respondent no.21 may be readmitted in hospital or in alternate, a physiotherapist may be provided within the Jail. 13. 21 has suffered elbow fracture in jail and he needs physiotherapy regularly and he was admitted in RIMS for treatment. Now after the Court's order he is not allowed to go to RIMS for physiotherapy. It is prayed that respondent no.21 may be readmitted in hospital or in alternate, a physiotherapist may be provided within the Jail. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the accused, Vijay Joshi submitted that he was ailing since long and he was examined at Kolkata also and this fact has been taken note of by the Medical Board, RIMS, which is evident from the document submitted by the State Government itself along with the report of the Namkum Military Hospital, Namkum (page 266-267) and he was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi by the expert body. The said accused, Vijay Joshi, is also ready to have his treatment in AIIMS on his own expenses. 14. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the accused lodged in jail and after going through the Medical Report as given by the Medical Boards of the RIMS and Medical Board of Namkum Military Hospital, Namkum, we are of the considered opinion that matter requires further investigation and an opinion is required from well reputed hospital like AIIMS with respect to the availability of the treatment facility in RIMS, Ranchi, the claimed best hospital in Jharkhand so as to find out whether the RIMS could not have given adequate treatment to respondent no. 19, the former Health Minister of State of Jharkhand and respondent no. 21, the former Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand for the ailment which have been shown in the Medical reports. Since, respondent no. 19 and accused Vijay Joshi, both are having medical report from the Medical Board of RIIMS advising their treatment from AIIMS, New Delhi and both the persons, respondent no. 19 and accused Vijay Joshi are ready to bear expenses of treatment from AIIMS, we direct the Health Secretary, Jharkhand to send the reports to the AIIMS, New Delhi and obtain appointment of Doctors of AIIMS through the Director, AIIMS or a competent officer who may constitute a Medical Board of Doctors to be nominated by the Director, AIIMS or by competent authority, who may visit the RIMS, Ranchi and may examine respondent no. 19 and Vijay Joshi and such Board may give its opinion and said Board may also look into whether the RIMS itself could have given adequate treatment to these accused persons, respondent no. 19 and accused Vijay Joshi. The expenses of this report will be borne by the State Government and if it will be found necessary that the treatment of respondent no.19 and Vijay Joshi is not possible in RIMS appropriate order will be passed and the expenses for going and coming back and treatment of respondent no. 19 and accused Vijay Joshi will be borne by the respective persons. 15. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director/Competent Authority of AIIMS, New Delhi so that proper appointment may be obtained as early as possible because if the respondent no. 19 and accused Vijay Joshi need some treatment then that treatment may be given as early as possible. 16. Respondent no. 19 and accused, Vijay Joshi may also submit their prescriptions etc. within 7 days to Secretary, Medical and Health Department of the Jharkhand which they want to furnish, which may also be sent to AIIMS, New Delhi for examination by the Board. 17. The report of the expert doctors of the AIIMS with respect to the availability of the treatment facility of RIIMS may be submitted on or before 29.02.2012. 18. With respect to other directions issued hereinbefore i.e., to the CBI, Directorate of Enforcement, Directorate of Income Tax and the State Government, may also be submitted on or before 29.02.2012. 19. So far as the case of respondent no. 21, Madhu Kora, the former Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand, is concerned, instead of taking him to RIMS everyday for physiotherapy, if possible, a physiotherapist may be sent to the Jail and if some equipments are required for treatment or exercise, which cannot be available in jail itself, then he may be naturally, taken to the hospital for his physiotherapy treatment. 20. So far as monitoring of the case pending in the Courts, wherein Challan papers have been submitted, is concerned, that issue will be taken up on the next date i.e., on 29.02.2012. 21. 20. So far as monitoring of the case pending in the Courts, wherein Challan papers have been submitted, is concerned, that issue will be taken up on the next date i.e., on 29.02.2012. 21. The office is directed to separate the Interlocutory Applications, which have been filed in this writ petition and which have already been decided/disposed of by different orders passed by this Court and these Interlocutory Applications need not to be shown in the Cause List in future. The decided/disposed of Interlocutory Applications be kept in the office and shall not be sent with the record. However, those Interlocutory Applications may be called by this Court at any time. 22. Learned counsel for the C.B.I drew our attention to the order dated 31.08.2010 passed on I.A. No. 3248 of 2010, wherein after noticing the requirement of the C.B.I, the Advocate General on behalf of State, submitted that all the requirement of the C.B.I as delineated in I.A. No. 3248 of 2010, will be met. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Submitted that in spite of the undertaking by the learned Advocate General, the requirements have not been fulfilled because of that reason, the C.B.I is facing some difficulty i.e., Stenographers, vehicles, petrol/diesel and even the police constables and other requirements as mentioned in the application. 23. Learned Advocate General may look into the matter and advice the Government to provide the necessary help to the C.B.I at the expenses of the State Government because of the reason that the C.B.I is rendering service to the State Government to unearth the wrong done by the persons in the State of Jharkhand causing revenue loss to the State Government. We hope that the State Government will fully co-operate and we need not to pass any further order in this matter. 24. Put up this case on 29.02.2012. 25. Copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties.