SATISH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in Special Case No. 63 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 87 of 2009 by which the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna has taken cognizance under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) On 3.8.2009 one Sukarwariya Devi complained before the Chief Minister that the Gram Sewak and JPS (JSS) were demanding Rs. 10,000/- as bribe money for handing over her Pass Book of Gramin Bank. Her complaint was verified by a member of the Vigilance Deptt. on 18.8.2009 who supported that co-accused Ram Ishwar Rai had demanded an additional amount of Rs. 6,000/- apart from Rs. 4,000/- already paid for handing over the Pass Book. When the complainant was examined during investigation she stated that the said Ram Ishwar Rai demanded illegal gratification. A number of other beneficiaries also complained that Panchayat Secretary, Ram Ishwar Rai had demanded illegal gratification. During investigation when the official residence of the Gram Panchayat Sevak who was residing with the Petitioner was raided, from the same house a box was recovered containing a number of Pass Books, some letters and cash. The co-accused Ram Ishwar Rai signed on the seizure list and was asked to explain the presence of such a large number of Pass-books which corroborated the allegations of the beneficiaries but could furnish No. satisfactory reply. On the basis of these allegations a case was instituted under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The counsel for the Petitioner submits that since No. sanction was taken for prosecuting the Petitioner who was the Junior Statistical Supervisor, Rajput Block No. cognizance was taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the case was proceeding under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap) which was unjustified since No. cognizance had been taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further points out that in the First Information Report the role of the Petitioner has been mentioned towards the end stating therein that the Petitioner as the Junior Statistical Supervisor had entered false facts in the application of the complainant without meeting her personally and on the basis of hearsay. However, the document which is part of First Information Report reveals otherwise. The supporting document reveals all the details have been entered by Umesh Paswan, the Amin who had made an inquiry in the matter as to whether the complainant was entitled to benefits of the Indira Awas Yojna. The Petitioner asserts that there was No. provision for a personal hearing of the complainant and, therefore, the allegation against him in the First Information Report that he approved the report without personal hearing of the complainant is unjustified. Further, the allegation that the Petitioner had approved the report on hearsay is also incorrect since when he did so he had relied on the report of the Amin who had annexed documents. Moreover, it is stated in the First Information Report itself that subsequently the complainant was included to BPL list and was given the benefits of the Indira Awas Yojna. Therefore, now as the allegation stands it is merely that the benefit of the Indira Awas Yojna had been denied to the complainant for about a year.