Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Hari Narayan Ray @ Hari Narayan Rai @ Harinarayan Ray – Petitioner
Versus
State through CBI – Respondent
Cr. M.P. Nos. 2597, 2600 of 2017, 2800, 2801 of 2019
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions - Challenge to Order Taking Cognizance - Indian Penal Code, Section 120(B), 420, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offenses 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. The key legal provisions of Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were interpreted and applied to determine whether separate trials should be conducted for distinct offenses alleged to be committed by a person.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed separate charge-sheets for distinct offenses, and the petitioners argued that they should not face another trial after being convicted for related offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offenses alleged in the separate charge-sheets were distinct and not related to the offenses for which the petitioners had been previously tried and convicted. It held that separate trials should be conducted for distinct offenses, as provided in Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could be put on trial again for offenses covered in the separate charge-sheets after being convicted for related offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of separate trials for distinct offenses as provided in Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found that the offenses alleged in the separate charge-sheets were distinct and not related to the previous conviction of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petitions, upholding the separate trials for distinct offenses alleged in the separate charge-sheets.
ORDER :
1. 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 charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet, the investigation was limited on the point of Disproportionate Assets amassed by the accused persons. The said charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet being charge-sheet No. 5 on 29.07.2013. The aforesaid charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet on 29.07.2013.
5. Again on 29.07.2013 another charge-sheet was filed for registration of another company on the basis of fake documents
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.
Merely because three separate FIRs have been filed do not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
The discretion to amalgamate cases under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not obligatory and depends on the interest of justice, and the facts, allegations, and evidence must be common f....
Point of Law : The concept is of 'same offence' under Article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.PC. In case distinct offences are being committed there has to be independent trial for each of such offence bas....
Double jeopardy does not apply as multiple convictions for distinct offences were proven, each relating to separate transactions despite similarities in nature, safeguarding constitutional rights pro....
Offences arising from the same transaction may be tried together under the Criminal Procedure Code; separate trials are not required unless distinct offences are established.
The court clarified the permissibility of multiple FIRs for similar offenses and emphasized the importance of efficient investigation by transferring cases to a single police station.
A second prosecution for the same offense and facts is barred by the principles of double jeopardy. Furthermore, post-trial commencement, investigating agencies cannot conduct further investigations ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
