MD.KHALID SIDDIQUE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned J.C. to Special P. P. for Vigilance.

(2.) IN all these three cases the four petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 26.2.2005 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance, II, Patna in Special Case No. 03/ 1999 (State vs. Pratima Patel & Ors.) by which the petition dated 3.10.2002 filed on their behalf to discharge them from the alleged offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Bihar Examination Control Act, 1981 and Sections 7, 8, 9, 19 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been rejected and it is also prayed that the entire prosecution case against them should be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present matter. It is stated that Md. Khalid Siddique was the landlord of the house and thus his presence at the place cannot be a ground for implicating him as an accused. With respect to Zahid Equbal and Shams labrez, it is stated that they are dealers of medicines and there was no occasion for them to be involved in the said matter. With respect to Mahmud Alam it is stated that he was a driver of the said Jeep bearing registration No. BEK -42 and there was no occasion for him to have been made accused in the conspiracy involving sale of fake admit cards since even in the FIR the allegation is that the accused persons had come in a Fiat Car and sold fake Admit Cards. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that there is no allegation even in the FIR regarding any hand of the petitioners in the commission of the offence except that they are mere persons who were found in the room from which the Admit Cards and the currency notes were seized. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation no specific material has been found that these petitioners were in any manner involved in the conspiracy and thus there is no occasion for them to be proceeded against and put on trial for the said offences. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the Jeep driver Mahmud Ali is concerned, a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 was recovered from his possession and the jeep was also found only standing outside and without there being any specific allegation of the same being used for any illegal purpose; in fact, it is submitted that even if the jeep was being used by the other accused persons, the driver of the jeep being an illiterate person could not have been treated to be a party to the said activity of the other accused and himself made accused in the said case. For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that there is no material against these four petitioners for framing of charges against them and taking them to trial.