Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Shiv Narayan Sah - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Vigilance - Opp. Parties
Cr. Rev. No. 903 of 2013
Decided on: 28.02.2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Vigilance :Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for legal evidence to support allegations in order to put a defendant on trial.
Headnote:
Vigilance - Corruption in Construction Work - Indian Penal Code, Sections 403, 109, 120B, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved corruption in construction work of schools where Assistant Teachers were deputed to supervise and construct buildings, leading to misappropriation of funds. The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Education, was accused of directing the misappropriation and receiving illegal gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no legal evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner. The court noted that the prosecution failed to produce material to substantiate the allegations of the petitioner giving a cheque to the main accused and receiving illegal gratification.
Issues: The key issues were whether there was legal evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner and whether the petitioner should be put on trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of legal evidence to support the allegations, the petitioner should not be put on trial. The court emphasized the need for material to establish the allegations and referred to legal precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's discharge and discharged the petitioner from the case.
By the Court - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.
2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 20/02/2013, passed in Special Case No. 85 of 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010), registered under Sections 403, 109, 120B, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby and whereunder the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected.
3. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P (PIL) No.1530 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department wherein it was found that in spite of Junior Engineers of Building Division being available, Assistant Teachers, who were having diploma/degree were deputed to supervise and to construct building of primary schools and other schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro district under the sponsored programme of the Government. They, in course of constructing/supervising of construction work of the building of the schools, indulged themselves in corrupt practices and thereby, they put the Government to heavy loss.
4. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR was lodged wherein it was alleged that in the meeting of Reflection-cum-Planning held at Ranchi, a decision was taken on the pretext of dearth of Junior Engineers to impart training to the teachers having diploma in engineering so that they may be entrusted with the job of construction/supervision of the building of the schools. Pursuant to that decision, an order was passed by Mr. Arun Kumar, the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro upon which the then District Superintendent of Education-cum-Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro, deputed 7 teachers for having training at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Ratu, Ranchi, vide its letter dated 05/05/2004. After they received training at DIET, the then Deputy Commissioner deputed them in different blocks for supervising the work of construction of the building of new primary schools and upgraded schools, vide its letter as contained in memo No. 998 dated 01/12/2004. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 07/02/2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. When the then Minister concerned came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools, the work, which was supposed to be done by the engineer, is being taken, he immediately passed an order for stopping that practice. Pursuant to that, the teachers were relieved from the construction work of the school. However, the then Regional Deputy Director, Hazaribagh, vide its letter dated 17/09/2007 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti with the construction work of the building of the schools situated in Petarbar block as well as other blocks and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School.
5. So far the petitioner is concerned, he was posted at Bokaro as Deputy Superintendent of Education from 07/07/2007. After being posted, he vide its letter dated 15/05/2008, directed Mr. Bharti to produce measurement book after reconciliation of the amount of Petarbar block for financial year 2003-04 to 2007-08. It has come that the account was supposed to be opened for the said purpose of construction of building in the name of the President and Secretary of the Building Construction Committee, but instead of account of being opened in their name, the account was opened in the name of Secretary of the said Committee as well as in the name of Ashok Kumar Bharti to whom cheque was given.
6. It be stated here that it is not clear as to whether the cheque was given by this petitioner in the name of Ashok Kumar Bharti or it was in
