Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 235 (JHR)

Mishrilal Choudhary v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-23

B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of complaint lodged by this petitioner, Vigilance P.S. Case No.25 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , which was registered on order of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, passed in Complaint Case No.03 of 2012. He further submitted that there was allegation of demand of bribe by one of the official namely Dr. Taran Singh, who was working at the relevant time as Research Officer in the Institute of Animal, Health and Production, Kanke Road, Ranchi. Thereafter, this petitioner approached the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi through his application dated 11.09.2015, which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to this application, for grant of sanction for prosecution against accused-officer Dr. Taran Singh. He also submitted that the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department through its letter dated 08.12.2015 communicated that sanction for prosecution could not be granted. This letter has been annexed as Annexure-10 to this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Annexure-10 has been issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, who is not the sanctioning authority, therefore, the order of rejection is wholly without jurisdiction and the same has also been passed without considering the record available against the accused. He also submitted that order of sanction has been refused on the ground that the Final Form has been submitted by the Vigilance Department in that case. This petitioner was pressurized to give bribe for receiving the draft from the accused as the payment was to be made on the work executed by this petitioner. 3. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any substantial material and thus Final Form No.03 of 2015 dated 27.01.2015 was submitted. He further submitted that Annexure-10 was a communication of the decision of the Government by one of the officer of the Department, although the Department has considered and on the direction of the competent authority letter dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-10) was issued. He further submitted that Annexure-10 was a communication of the decision of the Government by one of the officer of the Department, although the Department has considered and on the direction of the competent authority letter dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-10) was issued. Since, no evidence was found during investigation, therefore, grant of sanction for prosecution was refused by the Government. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers annexed with this application as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that on the allegation made by this petitioner, case was lodged which was later on handed over to the Vigilance Department for conducting proper investigation. It further appears that after investigation as no material against the accused person was found, the Final Form was submitted. Since, no evidence transpired against accused, therefore, the Government on consideration of the material refused to grant sanction for prosecution. 5. In this background, there is nothing on record to show the basis on which the prosecution could have been granted or that has not been considered by the Government. Therefore in such circumstances, instant application is dismissed.