Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 57 (JHR)

Rajiv Kumar Giri v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-13

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : Heard Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the State. 2. In the present criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 21.3.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda in Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 76 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 391 of 2010, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). 3. The prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report (F.I.R.), instituted on the basis of a written complaint by one Ramchandra Paswan, Sub Divisional Officer, Godda is that based on a news item published in daily newspaper 'Hindustan' on 6.1.2010 an enquiry committee was constituted to ascertain the relevant document available to the petitioner with respect to the distribution of seeds to the beneficiaries. It has been alleged that since the enquiry report was not made available, the informant personally conducted an enquiry in which he had found irregularities in the distribution of seeds to the extent that names of some dead persons were mentioned in the distribution chart and some lpersons had stated that they had received less quantity of seeds than what has been shown inthe distribution chart. It was also apprehended that in the villages of other Panchyats, the same situation may be prevalent. 4. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and subsequent thereto vide order dated 21.3.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the then Block Agriculture Officer and he had no role in the distribution of seeds to the Panchayats. He submits that there is no allegation of misappropriation of any fund, rather the only allegation so far as the petitioner is concerned, is with respect to non- distribution of seeds to the beneficiaries. He submits that there is no allegation of misappropriation of any fund, rather the only allegation so far as the petitioner is concerned, is with respect to non- distribution of seeds to the beneficiaries. He has further submitted that in fact vide office order dated 5.12.2009 issued by the Block Office, Poraiyahat, Panchayat Sewak(s) and the Halka Karamchari(s) were directed to identify the beneficiaries and thereafter obtain the seeds from the Block Agriculture Officer for distribution and in fact the petitioner in terms of the said office order dated 5.12.2009 has no role in distribution of the seeds. The learned counsel further has referred to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jay Jyoti Samanta v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2013(1) JBCJ 55 (HC). 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. that on various aspects irregularities were found. Some of the instances which have been given in the written report is that one Phulmani Soren in course of enquiry had given statement that she had received only 2 Kg. of seeds of wheat whereas in the distribution chart there is mention of 6 kg. of mustard seeds. Similarly one Azrun Bibi had stated that in the distribution chart a false thumb impression has been given, whereas she has not received any seeds from the Block. There are other instances also which have been found in the enquiry which prima facie reveals an offence and after investigation on finding the case to be true charge-sheet has been submitted by the police, subsequent to which, cognizance has been taken. In the case reported in 2013(1) JBCJ 55 (HC), the facts were otherwise. In the case under reference, the concerned officials of the State had advanced money to the executing agency for execution of certain work under the scheme of NREGA, but since the work was not executed, the said person was found liable and this court by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. had quashed the entire criminal proceeding. In the case under reference, the concerned officials of the State had advanced money to the executing agency for execution of certain work under the scheme of NREGA, but since the work was not executed, the said person was found liable and this court by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. had quashed the entire criminal proceeding. In the present case several discrepancies were found with respect to distribution of seeds and the petitioner being the custodian of the seeds for its distribution in the Panchayats in order to percolate the benefits to the actual beneficiaries cannot be allowed to absolve himself from his liability moreso when the written report and the subsequent charge-sheet itself discloses an offence. 7. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-5 which shows the distribution chart and submitted that proper distribution was made which would be evident from the chart. This in my opinion cannot be looked into at this stage while exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. 8. In view of the fact that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner with respect to the non-distribution of the seeds which has been found true in course of investigation, I do not find it a fit case, which requires interference by this Court. 9 In such view of the matter there being no merit in this application, the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the learned court below at the appropriate stage.