Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 12 (MEG)

Bernard T. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2018-05-04

S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : SR. S.E.N., J. Heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M.K. Marak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Khan, learned P.P appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "By the instant petition filed under sect ion 397 read with sect ion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner herein has challenged and prayed to this Hon'ble Court to set aside and quashed the entire proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under sect ion 13 (1) (e)/13 (2) of the Prevent ion of Corruption Act r/w sect ion 120 (B) IPC initiated on the basis of the FIR dated 20.05.2005, magisterial Inquiry dt. 04.05.2005 and Charge sheet No. 29/13 dt . 30.10.2013 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2014 (GR No. 26 of 2014) arising out of Willimanagar PS Case No. 15 (5)/2005 under section 13 (1) (e) read with sect ion 13 (2) of Prevent ion of Corrupt ion Act and under section 120 (B) of IPC. The Petitioner has also prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 and charge dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Williamnagar. The Petitioner is a retired District Transport Officer (Enforcement) Transport Department , Govt. of Meghalaya. While the Petitioner was posted and working as District Transport Officer (Enforcement) Transport Department , Govt. of Meghalaya at Williamnagar w.e.f. 09.06.2004 to 22.07.2005, the Williamnagar Police Station registered 2 separate cases bearing Williamnagar PS Case No. 15 (5) 2005 under section 13 (1) (e)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corrupt ion Act and Williamnagar PS Case No. 17 (5) of 2005 under section 420 / 384 IPC on the basis of 2 separate FIRs filed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively. Both the FIRs were filed on the basis of a Magisterial Inquiry Report dt. 04.05.2005 conducted by the Additional District Magistrate, Williamnagar. Both the FIRs were filed alleging unauthorised collect ion of money at Dobu weigh Bridge in the name of the Transport Department. Both the FIRs were filed on the basis of a Magisterial Inquiry Report dt. 04.05.2005 conducted by the Additional District Magistrate, Williamnagar. Both the FIRs were filed alleging unauthorised collect ion of money at Dobu weigh Bridge in the name of the Transport Department. Though the name of the Petitioner was not mentioned either in any of the FIRs or even in the Magisterial Inquiry, but however he was impleaded in the said cases as he being the DTO (Enforcement) of the Weighbridge in quest ion. There were no allegat ions of having disproportionate assets to the petitioner than his known source of income. The Williamnagar PS Case No. 17 (5) of 2005 under section 420/384 IPC were charge-sheeted and the Petitioner was named as ana accused therein along with three other co-accused. In the said case the trial court after hearing the prosecution and the accused, discharged the petitioner by order dated 20.07.2007 in view of the insufficiency of material evidence in the matter. On the basis of the Magisterial Inquiry dated 04.05.2005 conducted by the Additional District magistrate, Williamnagar, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964, as adopted by Meghalaya for the alleged involvement in extortion of money from the trucker and deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in his saving bank account with the Apex Bank at Williamnagar which is beyond his means as a Govt. servant. A show cause notice dated 06.12.2005 was issued to the petitioner and he filed his reply dated 15.12.2005 against the said show cause notice. The Enquiry Report dated 16.12.2011 by Shri. H.L. Purtoh, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries found the Petitioner not guilty of any of the Charges levelled against the Petitioner. The said findings were accepted by the appointing authority i.e. his Excellency, the Governor of Meghalaya vide order dated 19.03.2012. After a lapse of more than 8 years from the date of filing the FIR, on 30.10.2013, the Inspector Criminal Investigation Department of the State of Meghalaya submitted a Charge Sheet in the Williamnagar PS Case NO. 15 (5) 2005 under section 120 (B) IPC r/w Sect ion 13 (1) (e) of the Prevent ion of Corruption Act against the Petitioner. 15 (5) 2005 under section 120 (B) IPC r/w Sect ion 13 (1) (e) of the Prevent ion of Corruption Act against the Petitioner. By the same charge-sheet the other three accused person were shown as an accused and were charged under section 384 / 120 (B) IPC. It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid charge-sheet against the Petitioner were submitted on the same identical allegations and charges for which the petitioner was already exonerated by the departmental Inquiry which was subsequently accepted by the appointing authority. Subsequent to the filing of charge-sheet, on 28.08.2014, the then Special Judge, in Williamnagar PS Case No. 15 (5) 2005 passed an order splitting the case record of the Petitioner from the other three accused persons who were forwarded to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Williamnagar. During the course of said case, the sessions judge most illegally and arbitrarily vide an order dt. 19.01.2016 recalled the splitted case of the Petitioner and other co-accused on the basis of an application filed by the Public Prosecutor. By another order dated 29.02.2016 the Trial court directed for framing of charges against the petitioner and fixed the matter on the very next date i.e. on 01.03.2016 for framing of charges. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.03.2016 passed in Criminal Pet it ion No. 11 of 2016 was pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 19.01.2016 and 28.01.2016 and subsequent charge dated 01.03.2016 by remanding the matter to the trial court below. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the trial court below on 26.07.2016 and on 30.08.2016, the trial court passed the impugned order and on the same date i.e. on 30. 08.2016 framed the charges against the petitioner and also ordered to summon to f ice PWs for examining on the next date. Hence aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Court below and the framing of charge dated 30.08.2016, the Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the instant pet it ion for quashing the entire proceedings including the aforesaid order dt . 30.08.2016 passed by the court below. " 3. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially charge for extortion and other charges and an FIR was lodged against him. 30.08.2016 passed by the court below. " 3. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially charge for extortion and other charges and an FIR was lodged against him. Subsequently, a Departmental proceeding was also drawn and found that the petitioner is innocent and exonerated him of the charges framed against him and the same was accepted by the Governor of Meghalaya. After a long gap, the prosecution filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and prayed that since the Departmental proceeding is exonerated, a further proceeding against the petitioner is unwanted. So, it may be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar: (1996) 9 SCC 1 at Para 17. 4. In reply to the submission advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, the learned P.P appearing on behalf of the State submits that, to examine the materials on record is very important; therefore quashing of the proceeding may not be wise. In support of his submission, the learned P.P relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors v. Purushottam Singh & Ors: (2002) 10 SCC 333 at Para 4 and 5. 5. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the judgments relied on by the parties, I find that in this instant case, the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors (Supra) is more relevant and applicable. Para 4 and 5 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "4. That order is under challenge before this Court. It has been pointed out on behalf of the State that voluminous material is collected by the investigating agency and the Electricity Board has not exonerated the persons concerned. Hence, there was no question of quashing the proceedings. In any case, the learned counsel submitted that without considering such record, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned order. 5. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. Hence, there was no question of quashing the proceedings. In any case, the learned counsel submitted that without considering such record, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned order. 5. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The High Court ought to have gone through the material to find out whether prima facie, there was sufficient material to frame the charges. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The petitions are restored on the file of the High Court and the matters are remanded back to the High Court. The High Court is requested to decide afresh the petitions in accordance with law. It would be open to the parties to raise all the contentions which they are entitled to raise. The appeals are disposed of accordingly." In this instant case also the materials available in the charge sheet has not been examined, therefore I am not inclined to quash the proceeding against the petitioner, nor I am in a position to accept the submission advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. 6. With this observation and direction the petition is hereby rejected and stands disposed of. 7. The Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment and order.