NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 25.7.94 by which cognizance under sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120(B), 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner and others by the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No. 75/86 arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No. 30/86 and for quashing entire prosecution against the petitioner in this case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Arun Kumar Singh 'Vineet ', Vigilance Inspector, lodged a written report dated 1.10.86 addressed to Officer -in -charge of Vigilance Police Station, Patna, alleging therein that during the preliminary confidential inquiry made by him it was found that the petitioner who at the relevant time was posted as Block Development Officer, in connivance with his subordinates Halka Karamchari, Jana Sewak, Executive Assistant, Nazir, Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and executing agents, misused his official position and got false record prepared and producing the same as correct one defalcated a sum of Rs. 24,807/ - of Government money. About the allegations against the petitioner he submitted that a sum of Rs. 2272/ - which was 50 per cent of the estimated cost for boring sanctioned in favour of one Ram Swaroop Yadav was approved on 30.1.85 but payment was shown to him on 2.2.85 meaning that payment was made before completion of work. One another agreement of boring in the name of Dinesh Yadav, the son of aforesaid Ram Swaroop Yadav was approved on 30.1.85 and payment of a sum of Rs. 1500/ - was made under the orders of petitioner whereas the fact is that Dinesh Yadav was minor and was living with his father and there was no application of Dinesh Yadav on record for boring and in fact for the same land money was paid to Ram Swaroop Yadav. In one another case a sum of Rs. 2700/ - was paid as subsidy to one Tokhan Ram showing him as harijan and the amount was 90% of the estimated cost but in fact Tokhan Ram was not a harijan and he was entitled to get only 50% of the estimated amount. One Jagadish Singh was paid subsidy for 8 tube wells which were sanctioned in the name of his sons and nephews and it was found that except one all were minors and only 4 tube wells were constructed. Gendhari Sao, Dharmendra Kumar Sao, Sunil Kumar Sinha & Ajit Kumar Sinha have also been shown recipients of subsidy for boring but no boring in their lands was found. Some other persons namely, Anandi Mahto, Binod Mahto, Suresh Rai, Baleshwar Mahto and Sato Singh during the inquiry complained that they had either received no payment or received less payment shown in the records. In the report prayer for taking action against the petitioner and others was made. After investigation charge sheet against the petitioner and others under sections as indicated above was submitted on 25.7.94 and cognizance was taken on the same day by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna against the petitioner and others.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bish -wanath Pd. Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 97 and Santosh De vs. Archana Guha, AIR 1994 SC 1229 has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Although learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has appeared and submitted his argument but no counter affidavit has been filed.