Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Ananda Sen, J.
Hari Narayan Ray @ Hari Narayan
Rai @ Harinarayan Ray son of late
Nilkant Rai and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State through CBI and Anr. – Opp. Party
Cr.M.P.No.2600 of 2017 with Cr.M.P.No.2597 of 2017, Cr.M.P.No.2800 of 2019 and Cr.M.P.No.2801 of 2019
Decided on 6.12.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate, Mr. Shadab Ansari, Advocate, Md. Azam, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI, Mr. Parth Jalan, AC to ASGI

IMPORTANT POINT
Amassing of Disproportionate Assets – For every distinct offence for which any person is accused, there shall be separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately.

Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Sections 120(B), 420 and 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 218 to 221 and 482 – Amassing of Disproportionate Assets – Conditions for registration was not fulfilled and imposters and fake persons were shown to be engineers employed by Company and certificates of those persons were also found to be fake and forged – Facts which surfaced during investigation, definitely constitute an offence for which charge-sheet was filed – Central Bureau of Investigation, while investigating, found that petitioners have committed numerous offences by misusing their possession – Those offences, which they had committed, were not connected to each other and were distinct and separate – Fake, non-existent persons were shown to be employees and basing on fake and forged documents, firm was registered – For every distinct offence for which any person is accused, there shall be separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately – Offences committed by petitioners are different, distinct and not arising out of same transaction – No illegality in filing two separate charge-sheets by Central Bureau of Investigation and proceeding thereafter by Court below – Special Judge has committed no illegality in taking cognizance of offences and trying separately for charges – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 22 and 23)
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed.

ORDER

Petitioners, in this criminal miscellaneous petitions have challenged the order taking cognizance dated 29.07.2013 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in RC 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(F), by which cognizance of the offence under Section 120(B), 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken and the Court below proceeded against the petitioners.

During course of argument, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that after filing these criminal miscellaneous petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has framed charge against the petitioners vide order dated 05.11.2019 and 08.11.2019 for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 201, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. All these petitioners had approached this Court by filing separate criminal miscellaneous petitions. They are related to each other.

3. A complaint was filed before the Court of Vigilance-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi against the petitioner No.1 Hari Narayan Rai and one Enos Ekka. The allegation in the complaint is that Hari Narayan Rai and Enos Ekka were the Ministers in the Government of Jharkhand and they have amassed huge assets illegally. There is also allegation against them that they manipulated several documents. They purchased plots in the name of their relatives including in-laws. There are other allegations to the effect that after becoming Ministers, they floated construction companies and got their company registered so that they can legalise the money which they are amassing. Alleging different type of corruptions, said complaint was filed. In terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint was sent for registering a First Information Report. Vigilance Police Station Case No.26 of 2008 was registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 04.08.2010 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.4700 of 2008 and W.P.(PIL) No. 2252 of 2009, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation of Vigilance Police Station Case No.26 of 2008, which related to commission of various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation took over the case and started investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed Chargesheet No.1 dated 16.01.2012 for offences under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Rai and Sushila Devi. In the said chargesheet, the investigation was limited on the point of Disproportionate Assets amassed by the accused persons. The said chargesheet was filed only limiting to Disproportionate Assets, which was amassed by these petitioners and investigation on the remaining aspects and allegations were kept for further investigation. Be it noted that there are several allegations against the petitioners, which constituted to be offences not related to each other. After Chargesheet No.1 was filed, learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence on 27.01.2012.

4. Since the investigation continued, Central Bureau of Investigation filed another chargesheet being Chargesheet No.5 on 29.07.2013. The aforesaid chargesheet related to registration of companies by the accused persons on fake documents after hatching a conspiracy. Cognizance was taken of the offence covered under the said chargesheet on 29.07.2013.

5. Again on 29.07.2013 another chargesheet was filed for registration of another company on the basis of fake documents by the