ISHWAR CHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case, spelt out in the first information report, which are not in much details, can be noticed with brevity. Some officials were deputed for preparation of a list of persons, whose houses were damaged in floods, on account of breach of the eastern embankment of Kosi river. The matter was processed and 29 number of persons were identified, whose houses suffered damage due to breach of eastern embankment of Kosi river and damage due to said flood was estimated to be Rs. 3,655/- payable to the beneficiaries of the flood victims. However, when local inspection was made by the Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa and other officials, it came to notice that none of the houses belonging to these 29 persons had suffered damage, though amounts had already been released to them.

(2.) After a Police case was registered, Police, on conclusion of investigation, submitted final form disclosing paucity of evidence. However, that was not the end of the chapter as after Department of Vigilance took up the matter for making a deep probe, a special case came to be registered and on conclusion of investigation, Department of Vigilance submitted charge sheet against the Petitioner and others, suggesting complicity of the Petitioner, too in the scam. When the matter came up before Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No. 16 of 1995, the. Presiding Officer, in seisin of the proceeding, took cognizance under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and also that of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offended Petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance taken by the Court below directing the Petitioner to be put on trial.

(3.) Prosecution of the Petitioner was sought to be negatived on promises that even accepting the prosecution version to be true on face value, Petitioner had only forwarded the said proposal received from the Circle Officer to the Collector through. Additional Collector, Saharsa for sanction, who had eventually sanctioned the grants. Contentions are raised that the Petitioner who was then Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa, had not personally prepared the list and hence there could not have been his complicity in the episode. He was neither sanctioning/disbursing officer nor he had anything to do with preparation of list of the beneficiaries and what was done by him was in usual course of business about forwarding the list to the Collector through the Additional Collector, Saharsa. Refuting the accusations, learned Counsel would urge that while the Petitioner was made scape goat for no good reasons, the public authorities like Collector, who had sanctioned the grants, was permitted to go scot free. Since the list of the flood victims had been prepared by the officials, in that view of the matter also, Petitioner had nothing to do with the scam and in the matter of payment also, the Petitioner do not have his say as disbursements were made by the Anchal level officers. Other submission was that apart from the fact that the Petitioner was now a retired officer, in view of paltry amount involved in the matter, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the prosecution to continue.