18/25.04.2022

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2011 as against the petitioner for alleged offence under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 466, 468/34 of Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the present criminal writ petition. He submits that the case arises out of complaint case which was sent for investigation by the police. Initially charge sheet was submitted and the cognizance was taken vide order dated 01.04.2004 against only two persons and the investigation was kept pending against the petitioner though the petitioner was named accused in the complaint. He submits that upon further investigation, the police submitted supplementary charge-sheet and in the supplementary case diary, there is no material against the petitioner. He has referred to the case-diary to submit that the first charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2004 and further investigation was taken up on 25.08.2010. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the charge-sheet was not submitted against the petitioner initially, it indicates that there was no material against the petitioner and in the supplementary case-diary, no further material has been collected to charge-sheet the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the supplementary charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2011 after recording the statement of the petitioner and thereafter, cognizance was taken against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Signal and Telecom Engineer from 07.01.1991. Prior to his joining, one Bhima Ram died in harness and in the year 1994, the office of the Signal Inspector A.K. Banerjee received an application from Suraj Ban Singh claiming to be son of Bhima Ram and he claimed pensionary and other dues. The learned counsel submits that after necessary verification, on the basis of the documents produced by Suraj Ban Singh, the file was forwarded to the petitioner for sending it to Divisional Office, Chakradharpur for release of post-death benefits and consequently, it was sanctioned by Mr. G.N. Saha, the Assistant Personnel Officer, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Railway Pension Rules and Manual of 1950 paragraphs 1030 to 1040 and submits that as per Rule 1030, the pensionary benefit on death of railway servant can be issued inter-alia on the basis of death report signed by Sarpanch or the head of the village panchayat. He submits that the co-accused namely, Suraj Ban Singh had produced a certificate/death report from Rameshwar Pradhan-accused no.2- the sarpanch and another certificate was also issued by Rameshwar Pradhan- the sarpanch that Suraj Ban Singh is the son and sole legal heir of Bhima Ram. The learned counsel submits that these documents were initially produced before A.K. Banerjee i.e. the Signal Inspector who forwarded the same to the petitioner and the petitioner forwarded the same to the higher authorities for doing the needful. Thereafter, the said Suraj Ban Singh enjoyed the post death benefits of Bhima Ram. In the year 1998, the wife of the deceased Bhima Ram filed a complaint case being C/1 Case No. 17 of 1999 alleging that the entire death benefits were disbursed in the name of Suraj Ban Singh on the basis of the certificates issued by Sarpanch Rameshwar Pradhan-accused no. 2 and produced by Suraj Ban Singh-accused no.1, although Suraj Ban Singh is not her son. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that Suraj Ban