Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 311 (PAT)

Chandra Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2023-03-17

ANSHUMAN

body2023
Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. These Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the order, dated 14.08.2014, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, in Special Case No. 01 of 2006 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 5 of 2006. 3. The petitioners of both the criminal revisions are made accused in the said case. The petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 826 of 2014 (Shri Chandra Mohan Choudhary) was working as the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, and petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 834 of 2014 (Shri Mundrika Choudhary) was working as the Director, District Rural Development Authority, Supaul, at the relevant time of lodging the first information report. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the prosecution, the informant’s allegation was that the Office Clerk of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, was demanding Rs.1,000/- per house for allotment of work to his Panchayat for construction of houses under Indira Awas Yojna and according to him total 339 beneficiaries of Chhatarpur Panchayat were forwarded to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, for recommendation of sanction. It is the allegation of the informant that total Rs.3,39,000/-, at the rate of Rs.1000/- per house, was demanded as bribe. His allegation was that as he did not pay the bribe, the said amount was not sanctioned to the Panchayat under Indira Awas Yojna. In this regard, Vigilance has firstly verified the allegation of the complaint, verification report was prepared confirming the allegation to be true, raiding party was organized by the Vigilance officials, pre-trap memorandum was prepared by the In-Charge of the raiding party and subsequently the raid was conducted in the office of the District Rural Development Authority, Supaul on 28.01.2006. The accused was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs.35,000/- which was recovered from his right pocket of full-pant, in addition to that Rs.5180/- was recovered from left pocket of his shirt, from the different almirahs of the District Rural Development Authority, Supaul, Rs.9,11,378.70 was also seized. One Bachneshwar Jha and Prabhaker Lal Das were arrested for keeping the illegal money received as illegal gratification. 5. By virtue of statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused, namely, Bachneshwar Jha, the name of present petitioners have figured in this case. One Bachneshwar Jha and Prabhaker Lal Das were arrested for keeping the illegal money received as illegal gratification. 5. By virtue of statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused, namely, Bachneshwar Jha, the name of present petitioners have figured in this case. The petitioners were arrested, thereafter they remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2006. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been submitted in this case and cognizance was taken. The case was put on trial upon which, prior to framing of charge, two applications under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been filed which were allowed in favour of the petitioners and petitioners were discharged. Subsequently, the Vigilance being aggrieved from the said discharge order has preferred a Cr. Misc. No. 22023 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court which was decided by order, dated 31.07.2013 and by the said order the discharge order of the petitioners, dated 11.02.2020, has been set aside and the matter was remanded back to consider afresh with reasoning. 6. Thereafter, the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, has passed fresh order on 14.08.2014, in compliance of order, dated 31.07.2013 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 22023 of 2011. This time the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, has granted ample opportunity to petitioner of both the cases as well as the Special Public Prosecutor and discussed all the materials for the purpose of consideration of the discharge petition. Thereafter, petitions for discharge of the petitioners, dated 26.02.2014 and 17.02.2014 were rejected on 14.08.2014 and petitioners were directed to remain present in the Court physically on 04.09.2014 for framing of charge. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of refusal of discharge dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, has perversed in nature due to the reason that there was no allegation in the first information report against the present petitioners by which they have demanded money, nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. He also submits that after arrest, raids were also conducted to their houses at Patna and other places. But, no excessive money have been found from their possession at any places. He also submits that after arrest, raids were also conducted to their houses at Patna and other places. But, no excessive money have been found from their possession at any places. He further submits that the only material against the petitioners is the statement of accused arrested on spot under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he has narrated that the money which was present in the almirahs and some amount has been recovered in the envelops on which name of accused persons by post (not individual name only post) were mentioned. In addition to that huge money was also kept in the almirah about which this accused person has explained manner, percentage and reasons in 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 8. Counsel relied on judgment of Jitendra Gupta vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2016 (4) PLJR 894 [: 2017 (1) BLJ 199 ]. In the said judgment the allegation of demanding illegal gratification for release of said vehicle is there and prosecution case was based on confession of co-accused made to the police while under the investigation which can not be made foundation for conviction of the petitioners, incident alleged to have taken place in the morning of 03.07.2016 in which also the finding is that allegation contained in the first information report are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach on just conclusion that there is sufficient ground against these petitioners. In this case the value of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code has also been tested and held that statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to bring out the maximum that the person examined knows about the incident and to enable the investigating officer and to analyze holistically the materials available and then form an opinion as to what offence is to made out. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is relied on another judgment of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. reported in (1998) 3 SCC 410 . In this case the name of the accused persons were found in the note-book of businessman on which Supreme Court held that the entries made in the note-book having its probative value but such statement shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability. reported in (1998) 3 SCC 410 . In this case the name of the accused persons were found in the note-book of businessman on which Supreme Court held that the entries made in the note-book having its probative value but such statement shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability. In the above background the counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court may interfere in the revisional jurisdiction and save the petitioners from unnecessary harassment. 10. Counsel for the Vigilance submits that there are allegations against the present petitioners made by the co-accused from whose possession the recovery has been made and he has been caught red-handed by the trap team. He has made his explanation under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code supported under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Counsel for the Vigilance submits that this person is not the independent person rather he is a member staff of the petitioners’ ofice. As petitioners were the Director, District Rural Development Authority, Supal, and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul. The persons arrested were working under them as Office Clerks of the said offices. Counsel submits that upon bare reading of Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code the entire modus operandi have been explained. It has also been explained that under what circumstances the money were kept there. Informant of this case is none the else but the Mukhiya who has to play key role in distribution of the Indira Awas Yojna. In the said statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code which accused has taken how much percentage that has also been explained. It has also been explained that it is the informant/complainant of this case who used to play the role of broker. Therefore, the statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code may not be ignored only on technical grounds. 11. Counsel further submits that these two judgments on which the petitioners relied is not applicable in the present case due to the reason that in first case Jitendra Gupta (supra) the finding has come by the Court that only on the basis of the statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code conclusion can not be drawn. 11. Counsel further submits that these two judgments on which the petitioners relied is not applicable in the present case due to the reason that in first case Jitendra Gupta (supra) the finding has come by the Court that only on the basis of the statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code conclusion can not be drawn. Here Section 161 read with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code are there and in this view of the matter this judgment is not applicable in this case. Counsel further submits that so far as the second case Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) is concerned in that case the accused persons were the political persons and Mr. Jain was a businessman who has made entries in his diary. Mr. Jain was not working with the political persons. Here in the present case upon going through the statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code it transpires that all the accused persons were working in one office with one purpose to facilitate and to implement the social welfare policy of the Government, i.e., to construct the Indira Awas which is a very serious issue. 12. After going through the arguments and documents on record, this Court is of the view that there is neither any question of illegality nor any correctness nor any question of propriety of any finding are involved here. The order, dated 14.08.2014, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance Trap, Patna, in Special Case No. 01 of 2006 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 5 of 2006 on the petition of discharge is a well reasoned order and there is no need of any interference of the same. So far as the argument that question of applicability of cases is concerned, I agree with the view of the Vigilance Counsel that the judgments, mentioned above, are not applicable in the present case due to the reasons mentioned above. 13. In this view of the matter, this criminal revision application are hereby dismissed and both the parties are directed to appear before the Court for framing of charge. The trial Court is directed to frame charge within thirty days from the date of communication of this order, if not framed till date.