Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 960 (JHR)

Ravindra Kumar Pathak v. State of Jharkhand

2013-08-08

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER By the Court. - This revision application is directed against the order dated 5.9.2012 passed in Vigilance (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 (Special Case No. 85 of 2010), whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that a decision was taken by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi to raise infrastructure of the buildings of 8 newly upgraded high schools situated at Bokaro for which the State Government was to finance and the work was to be done departmentally through the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Bokaro. 3. Further case is that the District Engineer entrusted one Ashok Kumar Bharti to do construction work of the buildings of 5 high schools. He did the work and took payment of a sum of Rs. 99,41,652/- through cheque, issued by the D.D.C.-cum-C.E.O., Zila Parishad, Bokaro and the said cheque has been prepared by this petitioner. Subsequently, on physical verification when it was found that the work worth Rs. 62,79,970/- has becn done, rest of the amount of Rs. 40,19,677/- was recovered and was deposited with the Treasury, Bokaro. Subsequently, it came to know that one Ashok Kumar Bharti along with other teachers were imparted training for taking job of civil engineer. Having received training, Ashok Kumar Bharti was entrusted to do job of construction work of the buildings of several high schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro District and thereby he misappropriated huge money and, therefore, a case bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 (Special Case No. 85 of 2010) was registered. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken against the petitioner. Thereupon an application was flied on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the accusation stating therein that there has been absolutely no material showing culpability on his part in the alleged offence. That application was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2012 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Thereupon an application was flied on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the accusation stating therein that there has been absolutely no material showing culpability on his part in the alleged offence. That application was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2012 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that during inquiry and also during investigation it has come that this petitioner, who at relevant point of time was posted as Accountant at Zila Parishad, Bokaro, had prepared the cheque and that cheque had been issued by the then D.D.C., Zila Patishad, Bokaro but as soon as the petitioner came to know that Ashok Kumar Bharti never happens to be an Engineer rather an Assistant Teacher, he was stopped from doing work of construction the buildings and the amount, which was taken in excess, was recovered and was deposited in the Treasury and thereby he did not commit any offence. Therefore, the Court certainly did commit illegality in rejecting the petition for discharge. 6. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, submits that the work was to be done departmentally but it was executed through Ashok Kumar Bharti who never happens to be an Engineer rather an Assistant Teacher and that the petitioner was the person who prepared the cheque though the cheque was issued by the then D.D.C., but if the entire case is taken into account it would appear that all the persons including the petitioner were in consonance with each other and thereby the Court certainly did not commit any illegality in refusing to discharge the petitioner from the accusation. 7. The case which has been or objected on behalf of the prosecution, does not seem to be in consonance either with the inquiry report or with the investigation made by the Vigilance. From the inquiry report which is a part of the FIR, it is evident that when a decision was taken to get the buildings of upgraded high schools constructed by the District Engineer of the District Board. the then D.D.C.-cum-C.E.O. of District Board entrusted the job to the District Engineer but it was the District Engineer who entrusted the job to Ashok Kumar Bharti without taking its approval from the then D.D.C.-cum-C.E.O. of District Board. 8. the then D.D.C.-cum-C.E.O. of District Board entrusted the job to the District Engineer but it was the District Engineer who entrusted the job to Ashok Kumar Bharti without taking its approval from the then D.D.C.-cum-C.E.O. of District Board. 8. Further, from the inquiry report it does appear that since the District Engineer had no separate account, the fund was available with the District Board account of which was being operated by the then D.D.C. of Zila Parishad. In that event payment was made to Ashok Kumar Bharti. It has also come during investigation and also during inquiry that this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Accountant at Zila Parishad, Bokaro, had prepared the cheque and that cheque has been issued by the then D.D.C., Zila Parishad, Bokaro but as soon as the petitioner carne to know that Ashok Kumar Bharti never happens to be an Engineer rather he is an Assistant Teacher, he was stopped from doing work and the amount which was taken of in excess was recovered and was deposited with the Treasury. At the same time, it is also there in the inquiry report that this petitioner was never knowing Ashok Kumar Bharti from before. Under the circumstances, one cannot conceive a case of conspiracy on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the, case, made that the petitioner has also connived with the other accused persons, seems to be wholly misconceived. 9. Under the circumstances, neither the offence under the Indian Penal Code nor under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out but the Court did not consider the matter in right perspective and hence, the order impugned, under which prayer for discharge has been rejected, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the case. 10. In the result, this revision application stands allowed. Revision allowed.