DHANANJAY KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 17.03.2001 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance, (South Bihar) in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.37(4) 78/ leading to Spl. Case No. 158/83 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioners have been refused so far release of articles was concerned.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case happens to be the father of the petitioners namely, Haridwar Panday stood as an accused in Vilgilance Case No. 37(4)78 on the basis of which Special Case No. 158/83 arose wherein so many writs were filed on behalf of father of the petitioners on different score and lastly vide order dated 12.5.1998 the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to conclude the trial on or before 31.12.1998 and in the aforesaid background speedy trial was being conducted. On account of illness, as pleaded is the accused, Haridwar Panday became physically absent and was represented before the court under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. and continuing with the aforesaid status, the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.8.1998 and the case automatically came at the stage of recording of statement as provided under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As Haridwar Panday failed to give his physical presence for getting his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, therefore his representation was rejected followed with cancellation of bail bond vide order dated 31.8.1998. Subsequently thereof, as the warrant of arrest nonbailable could not be executed therefore, proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued and then after covering the stipulated period under the garb of service report, the attachment as prescribed under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued in pursuance of which there has been attachment of properties for release of which, the instant litigation appears to be in its third round.

(3.) Without adverting to the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners, as well as learned counsel for the Vigilance, I would like to refer the order of the Apex Court passed in Cr. Appeal No. 169/2000 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) 3832/1999 and in my view, the aforesaid order is capable to remove the mist whatever is appearing over the issue and for that I would like to incorporate the relevant passage which goes like this:-