STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAM LAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') the petitioner (The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna) has questioned the legality of the order dated 24.11.1995 passed by the learned Sabordinate Judge VII, Patna, in Money Suit No. 77 of 1993, whereby he has stayed, on a petition filed by opposite party No. 1 (defendant No. 2 in the money suit) under Section 151 of the Code, the further proceeding of the suit against opposite party No. 1 till the disposal of a criminal case bearing special case No. 60 of 1994, which is pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna, awaiting submission of final form.

(2.) The back ground facts leading to the passing of the impugned order may briefly be stated as follows: Opposite party No. 1, Ram Lakhan Singh, an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service, was posted on deputation as Deputy Collector, Revenue Administration, Patna Division of the Water Resources Department from April, 1984 to October, 1983 and Opposite party No. 2, Rama Shankar Prasad Sinha was then posted as the Cashier. On 5/10/1989 a first information report (Ext. E to the counter-affidavit) bearing Kadam Kuan Police Station Case No. 761 of 1989 was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 409, 1208 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on a report submitted by another Deputy Collector, who was posted there later. The substance of the allegation was that the money collected by different Tahshildars in that Division on account of revenue dues used to be received from them, but the amounts were not properly accounted for. Broadly three devices were allegedly adopted by the two opposite parties in conspiracy to keep substantial part of the collected revenue with themselves: First, in the money receipt book maintained in triplicate different entries were made and while the Tahshildars, who made payment, were given receipt containing the amount received from them but in other part of the money receipt book lower amount was mentioned, and lower amount was actually deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the Government. Secondly, some forged money receipt book had been prepared and receipts were granted to the Tahshildars from the receipt book, which were not genuine and money received were not accounted for, and deposited in the Treasury. Thirdly, in some cases no receipt at all was actually given about the amount received, nor was the amount deposited or in any way accounted for in the counterfoil of the receipt book or any other relevant documents, which were required to be maintained. After the institution of the case, the police took up investigation and submitted final form on 8/2/1992, whereby only the Cashier was chargesheeted and not the opposite party No. 1, who, on the basis of the final form, was discharged by an order dated 20.2.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who took cognizance of some offences only against the Cashier (opposite party No.2).

(3.) Later after acceptance of final form a departmental proceeding was initiated on 22/4/1992 against opposite party No. 1, and the Personnel Department also sent on 23/10/1992 a Proposal to the Home (Police) Department for taking up re-investigation of that criminal case. Further on 3/4/1993 the Money Suit was filed against both the opposite parties for recovery of the amount allegedly misappropriated and embezzled by them with interest. After the institution of the suit the Cabinet Vigilance Department, which had taken up re-investigation, filed on 13/4/1994 a note on investigation before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that some materials had appeared against opposite party No. 1 indicating commission of offence punishable under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code as also some offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and making a prayer to transfer the case to the Court of Special Judge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accordingly, passed an order on 21.4.1994 for addition of some Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the first information report and transferred the case to the Special Judge and the case was registered as Special Case No. 60 of 1994, in which final form is still awaited.