Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 257 (JHR)

Shree Nath Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-02-10

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned S.C. IV appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that matter may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rang Nath Mishra Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ,reported in (2015) 8 SCC 117 , since the order passed by the Lokayukta dated 25.04.2013 in connection with case no. 01/LOK (Health)/06/2006 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the order has been passed by making recommendation for lodging of F.I.R against the writ petitioner. 2. He has further submitted that since the F.I.R. has already been lodged, as such even if the order passed by the Lokayukta is quashed no material change will come as now everything will depend upon the investigation in connection with Borioya P.S. Case No. 246 of 2013 dated 26.07.2013. 4. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the respondents-State and going across the order passed by the Lokayukta, which is under challenge as also considering the fact that in pursuance to order passed by the Lokayukta, F.I.R has already been instituted, being Borioya P.S. Case No. 246 of 2013 dated 26.07.2013, is of the view that principles laid down in the case of Rang Nath Mishra Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) , is applicable in the case of the petitioner. 5. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rang Nath Mishra Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) , held hereunder as: "The appellant was a Minister of the State Government. In his Report dated 4-10-2011, the Lokayukta recommended that prosecution should be initiated against the appellant under Section 13(1)(e), PC Act by an independent agency like CB CID or the State Vigilance Commission, and that independent action should be initiated against the appellant under Section 122 of the Abolition of Zamindari Act for illegal possession of the Gram Sabha land. Further, that the appellant should be removed from the portfolio of the Minister so that the aforesaid legal proceedings could be carried out independently; and that the criminal investigation should be done through such an agency which can investigate into properties held both inside and outside the State. That the compliance report in respect of the aforesaid recommendations should be made available within a month. That the compliance report in respect of the aforesaid recommendations should be made available within a month. As the aforesaid recommendations of the Lokayukta, had been implemented and necessary action in terms thereof had been taken, the relief prayed for in this appeal was truncated to a declaration that the aforesaid Report dated 4-10-2011 of the Lokayukta is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 and that the said Report suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Declining to grant the said declaration, and dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court Held: Though the first complaint (undated) submitted by Respondent 4 was not addressed to the Lokayukta, the reminder dated 27-08-2010 was addressed, inter alia, to the Lokayukta. If that is so, there is no reason why the same cannot be understood to be a complaint to the Lokayukta for further action on the basis thereof. If reception/acceptance of a subsequent affidavit of the complainant in support of a complaint file earlier is contemplated by Rule 5 of the Rules, there is no reason why any fault can be found in the action of the Lokayukta in accepting the affidavit dated 22-12-2010 submitted by the complainant. Though the notice dated 18-10- 2010 for preliminary enquiry was issued at an earlier stage, it is by the communication dated 14-2-2011 (after receipt of the affidavit dated 22-12-2010) that the appellant was informed that the complaint of Respondent 4 has been accepted for investigation under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. If, in the light of the aforesaid facts, the Lokayukta had decided to proceed further in the matter and had issued communications to the appellant asking for his reply and documents in defence which were adequately responded to by the appellant on several dates, as noticed earlier, it is not understandable how the appellant can be understood to be justified in raising the issue of defect of procedure before the High Court and before the Supreme Court. The capitulation of the relevant dates and events leave no room for doubt that all requirements under the Act have been complied with in the instant case. The capitulation of the relevant dates and events leave no room for doubt that all requirements under the Act have been complied with in the instant case. While it is correct that the Report of the Lokayukta was submitted without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and the request for time for submission of the documents made by the appellant on 29-9-2011 was refused by the Lokayukta, the said facts cannot constitute a good and sufficient basis for the Court to find fault with the conduct of the proceedings by the Lokayukta in view of the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act which leave to the Lokayukta the discretion to adopt such procedure as may be considered appropriate in the given facts of the case. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant who had taken part in the proceedings at every stage. The refusal to grant further time to the appellant, an issue over which some grievance has been raised, is a matter of discretion vested in the Lokayukta and any decision thereon either way cannot be a legitimate basis for interference. What the Third Schedule to the Act contemplates is that the Lokayukta in the course of an investigation under the Act will not investigate a crime or determine the question as to whether the matter "shall go to, or shall continue to be prosecuted in a court or not". In the present case, the recommendations of the Lokayukta were merely for an investigation as to whether a case for prosecution of the appellant is made out or not. Accordingly, the matter was investigated and presently is under trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. " 6. Applying the same principles of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Lokayukta. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of writ petition, I.A. No. 9100 of 2013 stands disposed of.