BAIDYANATH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the order of the Special Judge, C.B.I., North Bihar, Patna, dated 19.1.1993, whereby the Special Judge rejected the application filed by the Petitioner for his discharge. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire prosecution on the basis of the first information report (Annexure-1) lodged on 31.10.85 incriminating the Petitioner in the commission of an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered as Special Case No. 79/85/R.C. Case No. 29/85. He has also prayed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.2.1987 (Annexure-3), and the order taking cognizance dated 7.7.1987 (Annexure-5).

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that a first information report was lodged by Sri D.S. Yadav, Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.), Patna on 31.10.85 alleging that the Petitioner, who was working as Office Superintendent Grade II in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Sonepur, has amassed considerable wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The Petitioner has maintained a luxurious standard of living, and it was necessary to search for the incriminating evidence in the nature of liquid assets in his different Bank accounts, safe deposit lockers etc. There was reasonable ground to believe that he had concealed incriminating documents at the places mentioned in the report, and that he was likely to destroy the same unless immediate searches are conducted. On the basis of the aforesaid first information report the case was investigated by Sri R.D. Mishra, Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment (CBI), Patna. Ultimately, a charge sheet was submitted on 28-2-1987 and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge on 7th July, 1987. When the Petitioner prayed for his discharge, the learned Special Judge by his order impugned dated 19.1.1993 rejected the same holding that a case was made out for framing of charges.

(3.) The first submission advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that even though at the stage of framing of charge, evidence need not be weighed meticulously, yet there must be evidence of disproportionate assets. In the instant case, the prosecution had added the assets belonging to the joint family to the assets of the Petitioner to make out a case of the Petitioner possessing assets disproportional to his known sources of income. Learned Counsel submitted that in course of investigation as well the investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses who supported the case that the joint family of the Petitioner possessed assets which were wrongly included in the assets of the Petitioner. He submitted that three members of the joint family of which the Petitioner was the Karta had stated before the police that each one of them was an earning member and each and all of them added to the income of the joint family. The joint family had, therefore, acquired properties from their income. This was not taken note of by the investigating agency. With regard to the acquisition of a plot of land at Patna the Petitioner had made only a small contribution, but the entire value of the land had been added while calculating the assets of the Petitioner. The prosecution had also included property owned by others and had shown them as belonging to the Petitioner held by him benami. It was, therefore, submitted that if the investigating officer had correctly assessed the value of the assets of the Petitioner, many of the items of property would have been excluded and a true picture would have emerged which would have shown that the Petitioner did not possess assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.