SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Nistar Minz, S/o. Late Abraham Minz - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand represented through Director General Department of Anti Corruption Bureau - Opposite Party
W.P. (Cr.) No. 329 of 2017
Decided On : 28-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Mr. Rohit Sinha.
For the Respondent: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P., Mr. Navneet Sahay, A.C. to ASGI.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21, 226 and 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), (1) (c) (d) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3), 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173, (8) - Quality Test of Materials - Vermin Compost Without Quality Test - Petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this court of Constitution of India, by petitioner with a prayer for quashing entire criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. registered for offences punishable pending in court of learned Special Judge - Held, It is further alleged that said firms supplied vermin compost without quality test of materials prior to supply and as such, said firms have also been made accused whereas Vigilance P.S. 11 of 2009 has been registered relating to purchase of seeds and ancillary items to seeds and involves a defalcation of Rs. 46.10 crores and same relates to period and is regarding purchase of seeds vide letter coupled with allegation of same nature in financial years and also there is further allegation in first FIR regarding promotion of vegetable products carried out vide letter no. 42 under which scheme, Agri Bio-zone Scheme Centre was required to be developed and said scheme is for period and there is reference of offence having been committed in respect of Contingent Crop Scheme carried out vide letter by investing an amount to tune of Rs. 2,20,44,200/- though said scheme was never given to farmers and this scheme is for period - Considering aforesaid facts, this court is of considered view that it will not be proper at this stage to quash FIR as well as entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance – Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. case no. 12 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi as Special Case no. 13 of 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same and similar allegations against the petitioner, pertaining to the same transaction, two First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered, contrary to the settled legal position in law. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second FIR, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition, relates to preliminary enquires bearing nos. 36/09 and 43/09 which were registered on being ordered by the Vigilance Commissioner of Cabinet Vigilance Department to make enquiries into the allegation of irregularities committed by the Department of Agriculture in purchase of seeds, equipment, vermin-compost, micronutrients etc. amounting to Rs. 461.81 lakhs. It is further submitted that both the enquiries being PE No. 36/09 and PE No. 43/09 are almost similar hence, the said two enquires were ordered to be enquired together. The second FIR pertains to the Advertisement No. 21512 dated 13.02.2008, wherein, expression of interest was invited for supply of vermin compost, bio-fertilizer, micronutrient etc. and the allegation is that the Minister bypassing the approval of the Cabinet, issued several State Orders and the tender was not invited according to Finance Department circular and the material was purchased at higher rate from firms and the evidences collected during the preliminary enquiry, support the charges of offences committed by the petitioner and the co-accused persons and separate allegations are dealt with respect to individual firms namely, M/s Pratik Biotech, M/s NCCF, Ranchi, M/s Anshul Agro Chemical, Bangalore in detail in the said First Information Report. It is further alleged that the said firms supplied vermin compost without quality test of the materials prior to the supply and as such, the said firms have also been made accused and upon lodging the FIR, Vigilance P.S. case no. 12 of 2013 has been registered.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that for the selfsame offence, prior to the said FIR, Complaint Case No. 2 of 2009 was lodged on 28.01.2009, by a private person which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by the learned Special Judge Vigilance Ranchi basing upon which, Vigilance P.S. case no. 11 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case no. 15 of 2009 was registered and the photocopy of the certified copy of the Vigilance P.S. case no. 11 of 2009 is annexed as Annexure 2 of the brief.

5. It is next submitted that the common Investigating Officer of the cases served notice dated 07.04.2011 upon the petitioner to submit his defence statement in the said Vigilance P.S. case no. 11 of 2009 as well as P.E. Case nos. 36 of 2009 and 43 of 2009. It is then submitted that the same Investigating Officer was entrusted with the investigation of the second FIR being the FIR of Vigilance P.S. case no 12 of 2013 also. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the first FIR relates to purchase of seeds vide letter bearing no. 1583 dated 02.09.2003 coupled with the allegation of the same in financial years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 and also there is further allegation in the first FIR regarding promotion of vegetable products carried out vide letter no. 42 dated 29.09.2005 under which scheme, the Agri Bio-zone Scheme Centre (A.B.C.) was required to be developed and the said scheme is for the period of 2005 and there is refer

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top