Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Md. Mejaj Alam – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through C.B.I. – Respondent
Cr. Rev. Nos. 675, 748 of 2023
Decided On : 30-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing notice and procedural order for jointly listed cases. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature of charges and allegations against the petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments concerning the insufficiency of evidence in the discharge applications. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legal precedents and standards for deciding discharge petitions. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis on the validity and evidence against the petitioners affirming the charge. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final orders confirming the dismissal of petitions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. In both the cases, the order can be dictated today as both the cases are arising out of same F.I.R with consent of the parties.
2. Both these cases are listed today at sl.nos.19 and 20 respectively under the heading ‘Fresh Filing’ and both the cases are arising out of the same F.I.R and in view of that, both the cases are being heard together.
3. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.Rev.No. 675 of 2023 and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.Rev. No. 748 of 2023 and Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I appearing on behalf of the respondent-C.B.I., in both the cases.
4. In both criminal revision petitions, the petition of discharge are also similar and by a common order, in both the cases, the discharge petitions filed by the petitioners have been rejected by the learned court.
5. The present criminal revision petitions have been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 777 of 2022 and M.C.A. No. 1613 of 2022 arising out of R.C.Case No. 6A/2013-D, pending in that learned court.
6. On the written complaint, the case was registered alleging therein that the case is based on written complaint bearing No. CCL/VIG/RI-7/2012/RDA-04-13/13-14/808 dt.19.06.2013 lodged by Sri Shailendra Singn, Sr. Manager & HOD (Security), Darbhanga House, CCL, Ranchi before SP, CBI, ACB Dhanbad, Ranchi alleging that:
(A) On 05.07.2012, officials of Vigilance Department, CCL, Ranchi conducted a surprise check, Kathara Washery, C.C.L to verify the source information received regarding fraudulent misappropriation of sale of slurry and coal rejects of 25000 MT approx. worth Rs.4 crores approx.. at Kathara washery Kathara Area of Central Coalfields Ltd (CCL), Ranchi by public servants working at Kathara Washery CCL in connivance with private parties.
(B) During the Surprise check it was revealed that during the period of 2010-2011 public servants working at Kathara Washery (Md. Islam Ansari, then UDC Clerk Grade-I; Md. Rahamatullah, the then weighbridge clerk, Grade-II, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, the then Helper Category-II, Sri Navin Kumar, Manager (Coal preparation) and Sales Incharge Shri J.s. Srivastava, then Chief Manager (Coal preparation) and Project officer all of Kathara washery, Kathara Area, CCL in connivance with some private parties have fraudulently misappropriated sale of slurry and coal rejects of 25000 MT approx. worth Rs.4 crores approx. of Kathara Washery, Kathara Area of Central Coal Fields Limited, Ranchi.
In Criminal Revision No. 748 of 2023:
That it is stated that the prosecution case is based on written complaint given by Sri Shailendra Singh, Senior Manager (Security), HOD (Security), Darbhanga House, CCL, Ranchi to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad on 19.06.2012 is inter alia that as per laid down norms & guidelines viz. sales policy of CCL, Ranchi, sale of slurry & Rejects (valuable byproduct of washery) is being done from various sale points including Kathara washery of Kathara Area, CCL, Slurry in dispatched to the consumers/purchasers (having Fuel Supply Agreement with CCL or authorized e-auction bidder) and coal rejects are dispatched to the authorized e-auction bidders against sale orders issued by Sales & marketing Division of CCL HQ against deposition of due sa
The court ruled that mere failure to keep a promise cannot constitute cheating; intention to deceive must exist at the time of the promise.
To establish an offence under Section 420 IPC, fraudulent intent must be shown; mere verification of a false affidavit without intent does not constitute cheating.
The court reiterated that charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot coexist for the same transaction and emphasized cautious exercise of powers to quash proceedings, only to prevent abuse of proc....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless it is shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction, and a prima facie case must be establis....
The court established that allegations of cheating and forgery require a clear demonstration of fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction, and that the existence of a civil remedy does not pre....
The court upheld the necessity of trial for charges framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that prima facie evidence supports the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent acti....
A person cannot be charged with both cheating and criminal breach of trust for the same transaction; the prosecution must prove the specific elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.
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
