Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2002
Against the order of sentence dated 26.02.2002 passed by Shri Piyush Kumar, 1st Class,
judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. No. 2914 of 1991 corresponding to Kanke P.S. Case
No. 97 of 1991.
-----------------------
Dr. Mahesh Prasad Singh ... .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party
--------------------------
For the Petitioner : M/S. Krishna Shankar, Anil Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Ms. Anita Sinha, A.P.P.
-----------------------
P R E S E N T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. on 20.08.2009 Pronounced on 2.9.2009
Pradeep Kumar, J.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. This revision is directed against an order dated
26.02.2002
, by which order Shri Piyush Kumar, learned judicial
magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi rejected the petition of the petitioner
filed for his discharge in Gr. Case No. 2914 of 1991 giving a finding
that from the evidences available on record, it is evidently clear that
a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that earlier the petitioner came before this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc.
Case No. 5153 of 1993 (R) along with C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1991 (R) for
quashing the F.I.R. and investigation of Kanke P.S. Case No. 97 of
1991 started against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code and the application was dismissed with
an observation that the petitioner can once again agitated the matter
at the time of framing of the charge by the trial court, hence he had
filed the aforesaid application and the learned trial court when
considering the points raised before him rejected the same, hence
this revision application.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that it will appear from Annexure 6 at page 42 of the plea that on the
2
same allegation under resolution of the Vice-Chancellor, Birsa
Agricultural University, Ranchi an enquiry was started against the
petitioner and it will also appear that while Annexure 8, the enquiry
report submitted by Shri R. Kerketta, E.O., Director, Extension
Education, B.A.U., Ranchi. The petitioner was exonerated from the
charges and hence the petitioner cannot be tied from the said offence
again in this criminal proceeding and hence the learned trial court
ought to have discharge the petitioner. The petitioner further
submitted that the basis on which the F.I.R. was lodged has found
not true during enquiry and as such there is no case against the
petitioner and the contention of the proceeding is illegal and the trial
court without considering the fact rejected the application only
giving a finding of prima facie case against him on the basis of
evidence available on case diary and is bad in law and fit to be set
aside.
5. The petitioner has relied in a decision reported in 1996
(IX) SCC Page 1, in the case of P.S. Rajya Vrs. State of Bihar. On
the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the
petitioner is relying on the enquiry report submitted by enquiry
officer, which is Annexure 8 page 47, which is not based on any
offence rather only by the construction of the petitioner showcase the
same has been based in order to save the petitioner, and as such, the
learned trial court while rejecting the prayer rightly found that even
the ruling on which the petitioner has relied i.e. Annexure 1 while
refusing to quash the application found at Para 6 that there is no bar
under law that a criminal case cannot be instituted for the same
matter where a departmental enquiry is present or his concluded
case both stand on different plans. Learned Hon’ble High Court
while disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1991 of Annexure 1 relied on
the decision of Supreme Court reported in 1996 (IX) SCC Page 1
before Supreme Court in 1461 and other decisions clearly came to a
finding that only on the basis of finding of departmental proceeding
a case cannot be quashed. Moreover, it has also been held in the case
of State of Orissa Vrs. D.N. Padh in 2005 (1) SCC Page 568 that at
the stage of framing of charge, the court cannot look into any
document filed by the accused nor can rely on any previous enquiry
report in any departmental proceeding and as such the revision
application is bad to be set aside.
3
6. After hearing both sides and after going through the
evidences on record, I find that the trial court has fully considered
the arguments of the petitioner and found that at the stage of
departmental proceeding in the court Annexure 8 cannot be looked
into as decided in the case of the petitioner itself in C.W.J.C. No. 195
of 1991 (R) wherein the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the
proceeding and the F.I.R. was refused only because the
departmental enquiry on the same allegations have concluded.
Moreover, I find that in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. D.N. Padh in
2005 (1) SCC Page 568 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also stated in
clear words that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court was
required to consider only the materials concluded by the
investigating officer during the investigation and no document filed
can be relied. The court has also considered the case on which the
petitioner is relying at Para 22 and stated that the case of P.S. Rajya
Vrs. State of Bihar on which the petitioner is relying cannot be a
basis for looking into any departmental enquiry report at the stage of
framing of charge. That case was decided by Supreme Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it
is not relevant for the purpose of discharge under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C.
7. Thus, as discussed above, I find no merit in the revision
application. The trial court has found sufficient material to proceed
against the petitioner and has fully discussed the points raised by
him in his application for discharge and I find no illegality in the
same. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.
8. Office is directed to send back the lower court record
immediately, since the trial has already been delayed since 2002 and
the court is directed to proceed since the trial should conclude the
same at an early date.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this
revision application is accordingly dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 2nd Sep. , 2009
R.K./N.A.F.R.