Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1543 (JHR)

Md. Hashim v. State of Jharkhand through CBI

2015-12-10

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
ORDER : All these cases, since arising out of the same impugned order, were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 3. All these applications have been filed by these petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 21.01.2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, in connection with R.C. Case No.06(A)/2013-D, whereby and whereunder, learned court below, took cognizance of the offence under Section 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against these petitioners. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that one Shailendra Singh, Sr. Manager (Security), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad, alleging therein that a good quantity of certain rejected coal/ slurry were purchased by certain Firms and the Companies. After its purchase, the Firms and the Companies, through its Proprietors/Directors, did appoint transporters for lifting of rejected coal/slurry from the colliery. The transporters lifted the coal in excess than what had been purchased, price of which had been paid and thereby, allegation was made that the Proprietors/Directors of the Firms/Companies, in connivance with the transporters and also the officials of the Central Coalfields Limited, got rejected coal/slurry, lifted in excess than what had been purchased. 5. On such written complaint, the C.B.I. registered a case bearing R.C. Case No.06(A)/2013-D on 25.05.2013 under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Agency, did find that the culpability was there on the part of the transporters as well as the officials of the CCL and also the agents of the petitioners, who were in league with each other, as it got transpired during investigation that the transporters, in connivance with others, had lifted more rejected coal/slurry than what had been purchased by the petitioners namely, M/s G.G.N Construction, Kathara through its Proprietor -Md. Hasim, M/s B.D. Enterprises, Kathara through its Proprietor-Md.Iftikar Alam, M/s Namita Singh, Dhanaura, Aurangabad through its Proprietor Smt. Namita Singh, M/s Amit Kejriwal, Kathara, through its Proprietor Shri Amit Kejriwal, M/s Barun Kumar Singh, Ranchi through its Proprietor Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, M/s Jagdish Enterprises, Ranchi through its Proprietor Shri Sunil Kumar Kejriwal, M/s Pramod Kumar Singh, Bokaro, through its Proprietor Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, M/s Milage Com (P) Ltd. Hazaribagh, through its Director Shri Rakesh Sondhi @ Pinku Sondhi and M/s Arun Kumar Agarwal, Hazaribagh through its Proprietor Shri Arun Kumar Agarwal, without any consent or even knowledge to these petitioners and, thereby, the C.B.I. while submitting the charge sheet against 17 persons, did not sent up these petitioners for trial, but the court below, without taking into account all these facts, took cognizance of the offences against these persons, who had never been sent up for trial. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. Md. M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly, no culpability has been found by the C.B.I., during investigation of the cases against these petitioners, who had never been sent up for trial but the court below, without assigning any reason whatsoever, did take cognizance of the offences against these petitioners and, thereby, it committed wrong in view of the decision rendered in a case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2015 (4) SCC 609 and hence, the impugned order dated 21.01.2015, is fit to be quashed, so far these petitioners are concerned. 8. As against this, Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., by referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid cases, did submits that the C.B.I., during investigation, did find that there has been excess lifting of rejected coal/slurry during the period 2010-11, on the basis of the authority given by the officials of the CCL under Sale Order, but the C.B.I. did not find evidence against these petitioners named above. However, it was submitted that since the reason has not been assigned by the court below in the order while taking cognizance of the offences against these petitioners, who had never been sent up for trial, the matter be remitted back to the court below so that the court below may pass order, after assigning reason. 9. However, it was submitted that since the reason has not been assigned by the court below in the order while taking cognizance of the offences against these petitioners, who had never been sent up for trial, the matter be remitted back to the court below so that the court below may pass order, after assigning reason. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I do find that initially the complainant imputed some allegations against these petitioners, regarding their connivance in the matter of lifting of rejected coal/slurry, which allegations had been levelled on the premise that the Proprietors/Directors of the Firms/Companies, may have connived with the transporters and the officials of Central Coalfields Limited in lifting rejected coal/slurry in excess than what had been purchased, but during investigation, as has been stated in the counter affidavit, no direct evidence was collected in case of these petitioners and in that event, these petitioners were never sent up for trial by the C.B.I. In such event, it would be futile to remit the case to the court below for passing a fresh order. 10. Admittedly, no evidence has been collected against these petitioners by the C.B.I. and, thereby, final form was submitted, but still, the court below took cognizance of the offences, without there being any material showing culpability on the part of the petitioners. 11. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 21.01.2015 is hereby, quashed, so far these petitioners are concerned. 12. In the result, these applications stand allowed.