Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Bijay Kumar Tripathy & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P. (Cr.) No.326 of 2016 with W.P. (Cr.) No.268 of 2016 and Cr. M.P. No.199 of 2017
Decided On : 19-12-2017
For the Petitioners:Rajiv Ranjan, Anil Kumar, Senior Advocates and Bhola Nath Ojha.
For the Respondents: Shailesh Kumar Singh.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code – Section 203/ 202 - Evidence adduced - Whether in the present case, the Magistrate erred in seeking report under Section 202 instead of directing investigation under Section 156 – Investigation - It has been alleged in the complaint petition that A2 being hand in gloves with appointed as Director of RINPAS - It has been stated that had declared in his letter that A1 was not eligible to be appointed as Director but by taking illegal gratification appointed A1 - From the very inception Ranchi has never been allowed to run smoothly because of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds - A PIL was filed before Supreme Court and after its intervention the situation improved to a certain extent and Ranchi was renamed as Ranchi Institute of Psychiatry and Allied Sciences - However misappropriation of funds, illegal appointments and illegal tenders continued to rule the roost. Allegation has been leveled that persons not eligible were appointed in various posts - Joint inquiry report contains serious allegation with respect to illegal appointment - Although, various other irregularities were also detected, but no action was taken on the said report. A writ of quo-warrantor has also been filed by the complainant challenging appointment - It has been alleged that another joint inquiry report was submitted Additional Collector Flying Squad and others with respect to financial irregularities in RINPAS - Report indicates misappropriation in drugs, food, library books, stipend, building works and others. However, no action was taken and the matter was represented before the Chief Minister but re-inquiry has been deferred – Held, Section 200 contemplates a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine complaint and examine upon oath complainant and the witnesses present if any - If on such examination of the complaint and witnesses if any Magistrate if he does not want to postpone issuance of process has to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 if he comes to conclusion that the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the witnesses have not made out sufficient ground for proceeding - Per contra, if he is satisfied that there is no need for further inquiry and the complaint, the evidence adduced at that stage have materials to proceed he can proceed to issue process under Section 204 of the Code - Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process - It provides that if Magistrate on receipt of a complaint, if he thinks fit, to postpone the issuance of process against the accused and desires further inquiry into the case either by himself or directs an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may do so - In that process if he thinks it fit he may even take evidence of witnesses on oath, and after such investigation, inquiry and the report of the police if sought by the Magistrate and if he finds no sufficient ground for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint by recording briefly the reasons for doing so as contemplated under Section 203 of the Code - But after taking cognizance of the complaint and examining the complainant and the witnesses if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint he can issue process by way of summons under Section 204 of the Code – Order accordingly
Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) No. 326 of 2016, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP.(Cr.) No. 268 of 2016 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 199 of 2017, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the ACB in all the cases and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the complainant in Cr. M.P. No. 199 of 2017.
2. Since a common prayer has been made in all these applications which relates to the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi-cum-Judicial Commissioner II, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1 of 2015 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 62 of 2016, these matters are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Before embarking on an individual discussion of each of the cases, the factual aspects which led to institution of a complaint and the subsequent events which unfolded are being discussed at the first instance.
4. A complaint case was instituted by the Uttam Kumar being registered as Complaint Case No. 1 of 2015 against Sri Amool Ranjan Singh, presently posted as Director Incharge, RINPAS, Ranchi; Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, the then Minister, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand and Sri B.K. Tripathy, the then Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand.
5. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that A2 being hand in gloves with A3 appointed A1 as Director Incharge of RINPAS. It has been stated that A3 had declared in his letter that A1 was not eligible to be appointed as Director Incharge, but by taking illegal gratification A3 and A2 appointed A1. From the very inception, Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala has never been allowed to run smoothly because of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. A PIL was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after its intervention the situation improved to a certain extent and Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala was renamed as Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry and Allied Sciences (RINPAS). However, misappropriation of funds, illegal appointments and illegal tenders continued to rule the roost. Allegation has been levelled that persons not eligible were appointed in various posts. The joint inquiry report contains serious allegation with respect to illegal appointment of A1. Although, various other irregularities were also detected, but no action was taken on the said report. A writ of quo-warranto has also been filed by the complainant challenging the appointment of A1. It has been alleged that another joint inquiry report was submitted on 12.02.2001 by the Additional Collector, Flying Squad and others with respect to financial irregularities in RINPAS. The Report indicates misappropriation in drugs, food, library books, stipend, building works and others. However, no action was taken and the matter was represented before the Chief Minister, but the re-inquiry has been deferred. It has been stated that the complainant had also made a representation before the ADGP, Jharkhand, but no action was taken. In the year 2014 an inquiry was conducted by a 4 Member Committee and it was concluded that several appointments including that of the Director was illegal. Another irregularity which surfaced was of work allotted to Cobra Industrial Security which caused illegal benefit to A1 and the security agency. Further allegation has also been levelled that financial irregularities were also committed with respect to purchase of books. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, a complaint case was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 468 and 467 of I.P.C. and under Sections 7, 13(1) and 12(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the complaint case was lodged vide order dated 23.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge, ACB, the Officer Incharge of Vigilance Police Station was directed to inquire and submit a
