Back
2009 Supreme(Pat) 541
PATNA HIGH COURT
Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.
Anpurna Kumari
Versus
State Of Bihar Through The Additional Director General, Cabinet Vigilance Investigation Bureau-vi, Circular Road, Patna
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 593 of 2008 596 of 2008
Decided On : April 6, 2009
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Petitioners seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution arising out of a vigilance case on the ground that the Special Judge, Vigilance, lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance under Penal Code or other law, without taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act first-Petitioners are Class-III Government employees-They were selected and their names recommended for the post of Deputy Collector on the basis of limited examination conducted by the B.P.S.C.-On account of complaint of bungling in the examination, vigilance case instituted against Chairman and other employees of B.P.S.C.-Subsequently involvement of petitioners came to light and charge-sheet submitted against them under various provisions of IPC, the P.C. Act and the Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981-Cognizance taken against them for the offences under Penal Code and the Examination Act-However, taking of cognizance under P.C. Act deferred till receipt of sanction-Sanction having already been granted in respect of some accused persons and cognizance of offence under the P.C. Act already taken against them, the Special Judge assumed jurisdiction to try offences in respect of other accused persons also-However, the Special Judge, in the terms of the bar u/s 19 of the P.C. Act, cannot try offences under the P.C. Act against petitioners till sanction is obtained-This does not bar the Special Judge to proceed against the petitioners so far as other offences are concerned-applications dismissed. (Para 30)
(1998)6 SCC 551, (2005)7 SCC 524, 2008(7) Supreme Today 663, 2006(7) Supreme Today 646, (1998)5 SCC 749, Cr. Misc. No. 25576/2006 dt. 25.9.2006-Referred to.
1. Both Cr.W.J.C. No. 593 of 2008 as well as Cr.W.J.C. No. 596 of 2008 are taken up together, as both the writ petitions arise out of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19 of 2005, dated 12.12.2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bearing Special P.S. Case No. 30 of 2005.
2. The petitioners seek for quashing of entire criminal proceeding pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19 of 2005 as well as order dated 15.5.2008 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981. The petitioners have further prayed to declare that their names have been illegally included in the charge sheets.
3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the criminal prosecution on the ground that the learned Special Judge, Vigilance lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under Penal Code or other law, without taking cognizance of offence under the P.C. Act first.
4. The petitioners are Class-Ill employees in the services of the Government of Bihar. The Bihar Public Service Commission published an advertisement bearing no. 4/93 for appointment to the post of Bihar Administrative Service from limited examination amongst the employees of the Government. The petitioners were selected in the examination and their names were recommended for the appointment to the post of Deputy Collector. In the meantime complaints were received about bungling in the selection process which led to an enquiry by the Cabinet Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
5. In view of the enquiry report, a case was instituted against the Chairman and 11 other employees of the Bihar Public Service Commission, being Vigilance P. S. Case No. 19/05, dated 29.12.2005, both under the Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. The involvement of petitioners also came to light and consequently charge- sheets both under the Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 , were submitted. Charge-sheet No. 30/08 dated 12.5.2008, pertained to the petitioners of Cr.W.J.C. No. 593 of 2008 and Charge- sheet No. 2/08, dated 11.2.2009, was submitted in respect of sole petitioner of Cr.W.J.C. No. 596 of 2008.
7. On the basis of the charge-sheets, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, by order dated 15.5.2008, took cognizance of offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201/120B of the Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 against them. However, the court observed that the cognizance of offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act shall be taken on receipt of sanction order against the petitioners and other concerned accused persons.
8. The petitioners have raised following points before this court. A Judge under the Special Act is a Judge first to try cases falling under the Prevention of Corruption Act and then under other offences. In other words, a Special Judge without taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot try any other offence other than the offence specified under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Secondly, there was no sufficient material for submitting charge sheet under the aforesaid offences. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decisions reported in the case of (i) State through C.B.I. Vs. R.K. Jain, (1998)6 S.C.C. 551; (ii) Dilawar Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Ekbal Singh and Another, (2005)7 S.C.C. 524; (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Another, 2008(7) Supreme Today 663; (iv) Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (7) Supreme Today 646; and (v) Pepsi Foods Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998)5 S.C.C. 749.
9. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that th
