1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 904 of 2010
Dr. Dinesh Mishra -- -- -- --Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. -- -- -- -- --Opposite Party
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
M/s. P.A.N. Roy, Arwind Kumar,
Neeraj Kumar & S.P. Sinha, Advocates
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
-----
Reserved on: 2-2-2011 Pronounced on: 17 -3-2011
D.K. Sinha, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned
dated 6.9.2010, recorded by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.,
Dhanbad in R.C.-3A/03(D) by which the discharge petition filed on
behalf of the petitioner was rejected for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Prosecution story in short was that during the check period from
1.4.1996
to 21.3.2003 petitioner acquired assets worth
Rs.50,67,065.51/- as against his legal income of Rs.24,79,501.27/-.
It was further alleged that the petitioner Dr. Dinesh Mishra during
the period of check made an expenditure of Rs.14,27,640.77/-, as
such, his likely savings was found to be Rs.10,51,860.50/- against
which he acquired assets worth Rs.50,67,065.51/-. The C.B.I. after
investigation of the case found that Dr. Dinesh Mishra acquired
assets worth Rs.38,17,295.48/- which was disproportionate to his
known sources of income and the acquisition of the same could
neither be accounted for satisfactorily nor replied by him, so it was
found by the Investigating Officer that the disproportionate assets
earned by him were considered to be earned by corrupt and illegal
means and hence, offence was attracted under Section 13(1) (e)
read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction
under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
also obtained for prosecution of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner
was in possession of 20 bighas, 10 kathas and 10 chhataks of HUF
agricultural landed property at Madhubani, out of which the
petitioner had one-fifth share and that the share of his mother in the
said property was also one-fifth. Her mother was wholly dependent
2
upon him. The petitioner and his mother used to earn Rs.25,000/-
each, out of total agricultural income of Rs.1,40,000/- per annum as
per the certificate issued by the Revenue Authority, Jhanjharpur,
but the learned Special Judge failed to take into consideration and
this income was not considered for evaluation of the income of the
petitioner during check period. Petitioner had constructed his house
at Kusum Vihar after obtaining necessary permission from MADA.
According to the valuation report dated 18.3.2003, the valuation of
the house was assessed at Rs.16,85,710/- being the total value but
at that time only 90% work was complete, as such, value was
shown as Rs. 15,28,635/- and the balance work of the value
Rs.1,57,600/- was completed thereafter. On the other hand, the
C.B.I. has shown the valuation of the house at Rs.25,03,152/- in
statement ‘B’ of the charge-sheet in Serial No.1 and arbitrarily
enhanced the valuation of the house by Rs. 8,17,442/-. The wife of
the petitioner was also an Income Tax Assessee and has got her
own Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by the Income Tax
Authority having her regular income. The C.B.I. had shown excess
expenditure in Statement-D of the charge-sheet during the check
period as Rs.14,27,640.77/-, whereas it should have been
Rs.11,46,335.77/-, thus an excess amount to the tune of
Rs.2,81,305.77/- was shown by the C.B.I.
4. Finally, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the entire allegation
of the C.B.I. showing disproportionate assets to the tune of
Rs.38,17,295.48/- at Serial No.7 in calculation of the D.A. chart was
misconceived and was calculated at inflated rate. Petitioner was not
supplied with the entire police papers by the prosecution so as to
prepare his defence, despite repeated directions of the Special
Court, however, the petitioner presented his case by filing relevant
documents showing his income from all sources including the
income of his wife and mother, who have their independent source
of income, but ignoring all these aspects his petition for discharge
was dismissed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel
appearing for the C.B.I., submitted that the C.B.I. after investigation
submitted a detailed charge-sheet giving the schedules of the
income and expenditure of the petitioner and assets which he
acquired disproportionate to the known sources of his income and
therefore, materials were sufficient to proceed against the petitioner
for the proposed charge under Section 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3
6. Pointing out towards the impugned order dated 6.9.2010, the
learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the charge-sheet the
value of the land and cost of the construction which started in
December 2001 was shown to be Rs.25,03,152/- but the
independent evaluation report given by the Executive Engineer,
C.P.W.D., Dhanbad was much less.
7. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan finally submitted that petitioner’s wife Smt.
Nutan Mishra was having no independent source of her income and
she was fully dependant upon the petitioner.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the learned
Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad by a detailed order rejected the
prayer for discharge of the petitioner and observed having been
prima facie satisfied that the petitioner acquired assets movable
and immovable worth Rs.38,17,295/- which was disproportionate to
his known sources of income and the acquisition of the same could
neither be accounted for satisfactorily nor replied to the
Investigating Agency. I find from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf
of the opposite party-C.B.I. that during the period from 1.4.1996 to
21.3.2001 i.e. the check period for the calculation of the assets of
the accused, the accused-petitioner acquired assets worth
Rs.50,67,065.51/- as against his legal income of Rs.24,79,501.27/-
and the petitioner during the check period made an expenditure of
Rs.14,27,640.77/- thus his likely savings was found to be
Rs.10,51,860.50/- but he acquired assets worth Rs.50,67,065.51/-
and in that manner, the assets worth Rs.38,17,295.48/- have been
prima facie found to be disproportionate assets to his known
sources of income as per charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I. In
the impugned order, otherwise also, I do not find any illegality or
irregularity so as to call for interference. There is no merit and
hence, this criminal revision is dismissed, however, with the liberty
to the petitioner to bring all the facts and materials by adducing
evidence in course of trial. Let the trial be expedited.
(D.K. Sinha, J.)
S.B./A.F.R.