HARI NARAYAN RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Kumar Vinod filed a complaint case on 25.10.2008 before the Special Judge, Vigilance against the petitioner and one Enos Ekka wherein it has been stated that the petitioner before being elected as M.L.A from Jarmundi Legislative Assembly Constituency in the year 2005, was having income which was not taxable but the petitioner during the period when he was holding the post of Minister, Tourism , Government of Jharkhand, amassed property worth Rs.30 crores whereas he could have acquired the property worth Rs.15 lacs and odd only from his known source of income and thus, the petitioner was alleged to have committed offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) On receiving the said complaint, Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi sent it under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Vigilance Police Station, Ranchi for its registration and investigation. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. case no.26 of 2008 (special case no.32 of 2008) was registered under the aforesaid offences and the matter was taken up for investigation by the vigilance.

(3.) While the investigation of the said case (special case no.32 of 2008) was going on, the Assistant Director-II, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna, respondent no.4 lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (in short `ECIR') on 4.9.2009 against the petitioner and others alleging therein that the petitioner and other accused did acquire huge properties movable and immovable using the same for their personal benefits by committing several offences including the offences under Sections 420, 423, 424, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are scheduled offences and thereby the petitioner has committed offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as `PML' Act) punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the case being lodged under Section 3/4 of the PML Act on 4.9.2009, the Vigilance continued with the investigation of the Special Case No.32 of 2008 and submitted charge sheet on 5.10.2009, though Vigilance upon institution of the ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate lost its authority by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 45(1-A) of the PML Act to investigate the case and to submit charge sheet and even the Special Judge, Vigilance, on submission of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 11/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which in the aforesaid context can be said to be bad.