1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 651 of 2009
Rajendra Prasad Khaitan-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through CBI -- -- -- --Opposite Party
With
Cr. Rev. No.652 of 2009
Biplab Majumdar-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through CBI -- -- -- --Opposite Party
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For Petitioner : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Bibhash Sinha, Kaushik Sarkhel
and Kumar Vimal, Advocates (in both the revisions)
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Standing Counsel.
-----
Reserved on: 15-2-2010 Pronounced on: 19-4-2010
D.K. Sinha, J. Both the criminal revisions are taken together arising out of
the common impugned order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the
learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge,XIII,
Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.7(A)/2000(D) by which the petitions
preferred under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
the petitioners for their discharge was dismissed.
2. Prosecution story in short was that the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature, Patna vide its order dated 26.4.2000, passed in
C.W.J.C. No.2652 of 1999, directed the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate the cases of Medical Store Department
Scam in Bihar relating to illegal purchase of medicines from the
Medical Store Department, Calcutta to the tune of crores of
rupees by different Health Units of the Department of Health
Services, Government of Bihar. Pursuant to that, a case was
registered vide R.C. 7(A)/2000(D) on 20.6.2000 on the statement
of the informant Sri Braj Kishore Pathak, Deputy Collector,
Confidential Section, Dumka (Bihar) for the alleged offence under
Sections 120-B r/w 408, 409, 420,467, 468, 471, 477-A of I.P.C. as
also under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i) (c) & (d) of P.C. Act. Materials
could be collected against the petitioners in course of
2
investigation. It was disclosed during investigation of the case
that the consignment of medicines meant for Medical Officer,
Incharge, Referral Hospital, Jarmundi under Issue Voucher
No.40/1/93 and Issue Voucher No.160/1/93 for the consignee i.e.
Incharge Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Jarmandi were
packed under 40 cartons related to Issue Voucher No.40/1/93
and separate 240 cartons related to Issue Voucher No.160/1/93
and such vouchers were handed over to the petitioner Biplab
Majumdar, representative of M/s. Sureka Air Transport, Kolkata
on 16.2.1993 and 26.2.1993 respectively against acknowledgement
for transportation and delivery of the consignment to the said
consignee. But the investigation revealed that no such medicine
could be received at the consignee end i.e. Incharge Medicial
Officer, Referral Hospital, Jarmundi in respect of the said two
vouchers. It was further disclosed during investigation that Smt.
Radha Devi Khaitan (since expired) was the proprietor of the
aforesaid firm M/s. Sureka Air Transport having its office at 119-
B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata and the affairs of the said
company were being looked after by the petitioner Rajendra
Prasad Khaitan under the power of attorney executed by Smt.
Radha Devi Khaitan. Petitioner Biplab Majumdar was the
Loading Supervisor/Representative and one Pawan Kumar
Khaitan was the Booking Incharge of the firm handling the
transportation work under the supervision of the petitioner
Rajendra Prasad Khaitan. Though consignments of medicines
were received by Biplab Majumdar on behalf of the said firm
M/s. Sureka Air Transport but the same were not delivered to the
consignee Medical Officer, Incharge, Referral Hospital, Jarmundi.
It could be gathered in course of investigation that the
consignments of medicines were unloaded in the godown of the
said firm M/s. Sureka Air Transport and its sister concern M/s.
Phoenix Roadways at Kolkata and it was found that there was no
actual transportation of the aforesaid consignments as the
company did not indicate the registration numbers of the trucks
which was essentially to be mentioned at least in the transporter’s
challan.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners
submitted that initially Jarmundi P.S. Case No.0131 of 1994 was
3
registered as a regular case on 15.11.1994 against the accused
persons for thorough probe of the allegation.
4. The counsel explained that the father of the petitioner
namely Shri Sova Chand Khaitan (since died) was the proprietor
of M/s. Sureka Air Transport and after his death, the mother of
the petitioner Smt. Radha Devi Khaitan became the sole owner
who took over the management of the said business under her
control. The said Sova Chand Khaitan at the time of his death, left
behind his wife Smt. Radha Devi Khaitan and two minor sons ,
namely, Rajendra Prasad Khaitan i.e. the petitioner herein and
another Ramesh Khaitan. Subsequently, they became major and
started their own business of Travel Agency under the name and
style of M/s Time Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd. since 1985 mainly for
selling Air Tickets all over India and they received the honour of
first prize for highest selling of tickets. The petitioner Rajendra
Prasad Khaitan introduced Car Rental business in Kolkata under
the name and style of “Time Cab” and such business became
very much popular in West Bengal. He had no occasion to look
after and/or to take part in any other business of M/s. Sureka Air
Transport save and except the business of Time Travel. He
became power of attorney holder just to save M/s. Sureka Air
Transport from litigation after the death of his mother. He never
involved himself in the affairs of the said transportation business
and that the said business was closed after some time upon the
death of his mother and that the petitioner Rajendra Prasad
Khaitan was appointed as a constituted attorney by her of the
said firm the learned counsel added only to deal with the taxation
matter and not the administrative matter.
5. It was alleged that consignment note did not bear the Truck
number. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner
Rajendra Prasad Khaitan submitted that the consignment note
would bear the description of goods only. The truck number used
to be mentioned in the road challan issued by the consignor and
here the medical authority issued the road challan bearing the
Truck No.WB 03 1911 and the goods were delivered by the said
truck to the consignee.
4
6. With reference to allegation levelled against the petitioner
Biplab Majumdar, the learned counsel submitted that the defence
of the petitioner stands on similar footing.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the above goods
consisting of 240 bales 3895 Kg. under voucher No.160/1/93 and
40 bales 1520 Kg under voucher No.40/1/93 were delivered to
the consignee by Truck Nos. OSB 4377 and WB 03 1911 at various
places including Jarmundi which would be evident from the
acknowledgement made by Sri Madan Lal (co-accused) in token
of receipt of goods. In view of that, it cannot be alleged that
transporter never transported the goods to the consignee.
8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing
on behalf of the C.B.I. opposed such contentions and submitted
that the Investigating Officer after investigation of case could be
able to produce sufficient materials before the Court by filing
charge-sheet and the case diary and that the Special Judge having
been satisfied with the prima facie materials in the case diary took
cognizance of the offence and also rejected the petition filed on
behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure after carefully gone into the
entire materials on record.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, arguments
advanced on behalf of the parties, I find substance in the
argument of the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the C.B.I. that the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad after having
been prima facie satisfied with the materials available in the case
diary rejected the petition of the petitioners preferred under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge
by a speaking order. Prima facie satisfaction can be interpreted as
subjective satisfaction of the Court concerned either for taking
cognizance of the offence or to put the accused on trial after
framing of charge. Points raised for their discharge under Section
227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been meticulously
dealt with by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners failed to show any
positive ground so as to call for interference in the impugned
order. The defence of the petitioners can well be appreciated at
5
the stage of trial by cross examining the witnesses and testing
their credibility.
10. There being no merit, both the criminal revisions are
dismissed.
(D.K. Sinha, J.)
S.B./A.F.R.