Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 390 (PAT)

Jamuna Ram v. State of Bihar

2013-03-19

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. of Vigilance P.S.Case No. 59 of 2012 dated 14.08.2012 registered under sections 467,468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The petitioner is one of the named accused of the said case. 2. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of enquiry report submitted by one Baidyanath Prasad, Inspector of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna. In the FIR, it has been alleged that in the preliminary enquiry sufficient evidence has been found that Dr.Binod Singh, the then Registrar, Bihar State Homeopathic, Board, Kadam Kuan, Patna (for short “the Board”) by abusing his official position and conspiring together with other accused, is involved in corrupt practice. Some homeopathic doctors had submitted in writing that at the time of their registration, more than the requisite fees were charged by the employees of the Board. However, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Registrar, he did not take any action. He justified the illegal realization of the amount from the doctors for the purposes of registration by the employees of the Board. Further allegation is that on 28.3.2011 the petitioner was caught red handed while taking bribe. He was sent to jail and the Registrar granted sanction for his prosecution in that case. However, when the petitioner was released from jail on 17.6.2011, the Registrar revoked his suspension on the very next day i.e. 18.6.2011 and posted him in the same office on the same post. The petitioner was again apprehended on 4.8.2011 while taking bribe. It has been alleged that, while revoking the order of suspension of the petitioner, the Registrar had not taken the approval of the Chairman of the Board. The Registrar also failed to take any action against the petitioner. The preliminary enquiry revealed that the petitioner being encouraged and favoured by the Registrar, had repeated the illegal acts. 3. Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had been made accused in Vigilance Case No.20 of 2011. He was remanded in that case on 29.8.2011. By order dated 13.6.2011, he was granted bail and on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet had already been submitted against him. 3. Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had been made accused in Vigilance Case No.20 of 2011. He was remanded in that case on 29.8.2011. By order dated 13.6.2011, he was granted bail and on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet had already been submitted against him. He was again arrested on 4.8.2011 by the Vigilance on similar allegation of taking bribe for which Vigilance P.S.Case No.52 of 2011 had been instituted. He was remanded to judicial custody and, on conclusion of investigation, the Vigilance had already submitted charge-sheet against him in the second case too. Both the cases instituted against the petitioner are pending in the court of Special Judge. In the second case also the petitioner had been granted bail by this court on 17.1.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the vigilance found no evidence during investigation of the said two cases on the point of involvement of any person other than the petitioner and even in the charge-sheet submitted by the vigilance in the said two cases, apart from the petitioner none else had been sent up for trial. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present FIR no fresh allegation has been made against the petitioner. According to him, there cannot be multiple FIRs against a person for the same set of allegation. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the vigilance, submitted that it is true that prior to the institution of the present case, the petitioner was arrested red handed while taking bribe earlier on two occasions for which Vigilance Case Nos.20 of 2011 and 52 of 2011 were registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet vide charge-sheet nos. 37 of 2011 dated 18.5.2011 and 78 of 2011 dated 28.9.2011 respectively had been submitted against the petitioner in the court. However, the present case is not based on the same set of allegations. The present case is primarily against the Registrar of the Board, against whom, prima facie, material evidences had been collected in course of enquiry and investigation which substantiated his apparent involvement in committing offence in connivance and conspiracy with other employees of the Board including the petitioner. However, the present case is not based on the same set of allegations. The present case is primarily against the Registrar of the Board, against whom, prima facie, material evidences had been collected in course of enquiry and investigation which substantiated his apparent involvement in committing offence in connivance and conspiracy with other employees of the Board including the petitioner. The Registrar of the Board acted arbitrarily and abused his official position in contravention of the rules and regulations as well as norms and guidelines prescribed for registration of homeopathic doctors in connivance and conspiracy with other accused persons with intent to get more pecuniary advantage for their own personal gain. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that both the previous cases lodged against the petitioner covers only the offence of making a demand and acceptance of bribe for which he was trapped twice by the vigilance team. However, the present case has been instituted for the criminal offence of abuse of official position on the part of Registrar of the Board and others including the petitioner. He, thus, submitted that the allegations in the previous two cases lodged against the petitioner were separate and distinct and as such there is no illegality in the present FIR. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that prima facie the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. I further find that the allegations made in the present FIR are quite distinct from the allegations made in the two earlier cases against the petitioner in which he was trapped while taking bribe. It is true that in the present case primarily the main thrust of the allegation is against the then Registrar of the Board but so far as the conspiracy angle is concerned, the role of the other employees of the Board including the petitioner is also under scanner of the investigation. Thus, it cannot be said that for the same set of allegations the petitioner has been made accused in the present FIR. If an offence is alleged to have been committed, it is the bounden duty of the police to investigate into the offence and collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. It is open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding the allegations substantiated. If an offence is alleged to have been committed, it is the bounden duty of the police to investigate into the offence and collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. It is open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding the allegations substantiated. It is also open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding no material to support the allegations made in the FIR. After the police/investigating agency submit their report, it is for the Magistrate/Special Judge concerned to deal with the matter further in accordance with law. 8. In view of the facts discussed, hereinabove, at the stage of investigation, it would not be proper for this court to jump to any conclusion and quash the FIR at the threshold. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.