INDER LAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by petitioner has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.12.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad in GR Case No. 1108 of 2000/ Trial No. 1509 of 2003 arising out of Jehanabad Police Station Case No. 298 of 2000 rejecting the prayer of petitioner to discharge him from the case.

(2.) The case of petitioner, in short, is that petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division No. 1, Jehanabad from 25.12.1996 to 22.5.1998 and he retired from service on 31.1.2000. The further case of petitioner is that in compliance to the letter bearing No. 453 legal dated 19.6.2000 issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Jehanabad which was written pursuant to a decision taken in the meeting of District 20 Programme Execution Committee and in the light of the direction given in the letter, the work, executed in the year, 1997-98 under the head "small repair" by the Road Construction Department, Road Division No. 1, was verified and examined by Executive Engineer, Road Division No.2, Jehanabad who submitted his report after verification vide his letters bearing Nos. 106, 118, 124, 143, 166 dated 3.6.1998, 13.6.1998, 20.6.1998, 10.7.1998 and 3.8.1998 respectively and copies of these letters are annexed with the written report of informant. In the light of report submitted by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jehanabad, the informant requested for instituting first information report against twenty one persons including the petitioner for their alleged act of irregularity, defalcation and interpolation made in the Government records and Jehanabad Police Station Case No. 298 dated 23.6.2000 was instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (In short "IPC") and investigation was taken up and police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and one Hamid Raza Ansari and they were sent up for trial whereas other co-accused persons were found innocent and investigation against some of the co-accused persons was kept pending. The further case of petitioner is that charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted anticipating sanction for prosecution but no sanction has so far been obtained. It is further submitted that enquiry was ordered by District Magistrate, Jehanabad on the basis of a complaint made by one Shri Jagdish Sharma, an MLA and whole enquiry was politically motivated because petitioner failed to oblige the henchmen of aforesaid MLA who wanted to grab the contract work in the locality. The further case of petitioner is that, admittedly, petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer and enquiry against him was conducted by another Executive Engineer which is against the normal rule of law and principles of natural justice because petitioner was not the subordinate to the officer who conducted enquiry. It is also the case of petitioner that prior to institution of first information report, no explanation was sought from him and during investigation no evidence has been collected against him and there is no material except the enquiry report and cognizance of offence was taken without any supporting material and cognizance is bad in law in absence of sanction. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dead 5.12.2003 by which his prayer for discharge has been rejected.

(3.) From the perusal of impugned order, I find that the Court below has observed that police submitted charge-sheet after through investigation of the case and there are sufficient materials available on record for proceeding against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. The Court below has further observed that the acts alleged to have been committed by accused persons are acts done beyond their official duty and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no sanction is necessary, A Bench of Single Judge of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Kishore Kumar Rai, 2005 1 PLJR 18, by relying upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Satwant Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 266, has held as follows :