BIBHUTI BHUSHAN PRASAD AMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.

(2.) The petitioner is in custody for the alleged offence recorded vide R.C.- 03(A)/2011-R under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under Section 52/55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2000, now pending in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I.(A.C.B.)-Ranchi.

(3.) A case was lodged at the instance of the Jharkhand High Court pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(P.I.L.)No.1531 of 2011 with the general allegation about the unauthorized construction in the city of Ranchi in connivance and in collusion with the R.R.D.A. as the provision of Ranchi Planning Standard and Bye-Laws, 2002 were not being followed in letters and spirit which resulted into unauthorized construction in the city with deviations. The statutory powers had failed in the duty to prevent and checking the unauthorized construction rather they deliberately and intentionally permitted such construction. Parking space, which were to be provided vide clause 23 of the Bye-laws were also converted into commercial utilization and the maps resanctioned to legalize such wrong which was impermissible in the Bye-laws. It was directed to initiate proceeding against the authorities concerned and the erring builders and the persons influencing them for the alleged offence referred to here-in-before. The F.I.R. was instituted against unknown officials of the R.R.D.A. and unknown builders, firms and companies engaged in the real estate business. During course of investigation "Chandralok" Multistoried Building was picked up and summons under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was issued to Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Managing Director of Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd., a registered Private Limited Company which constructed Chandralok. The Managing Director handed over all the relevant documents to the Investigating Officer, C.B.I. showing his bonafides. The petitioner being one of the Directors of Aroma Construction Private Limited, also visited the Investigating Officer in good faith so that the relevant documents may be handed over and real truth be revealed. Pursuant to search warrants issued by the Court, no incriminating article could be recovered by the C.B.I. sleuths 2. from the search of the houses of the petitioner and the M.D. of the Company. The Managing Director Sri Vijay Kumar Singh was called by the Investigating Officer on 15.06.2011 but he was mala fidely arrested without rhyme or reason in complete violation of Section 41 and 41A as also under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested in the same sequence. On the same day ignoring the fact that the entire affairs of the company was being handled, looked after and managed by Shri Vijay Kumar Singh the then Managing Director and no specific role could be assigned alleged to be played by the petitioner in the deviation of the Apartment. The parameters of law were followed by according sanction to construct three more flats of the existing structure of "Chandralok" building and there was neither suppression nor misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner being one of the Directors of the said Construction Company. The Vice-Chairman of the R.R.D.A. had been vested with the powers to cancel the sanction of the building in contravention of the Bye-laws of the R.R.D.A. and the penal provision was also attracted therein. The petitioner had already deposited fine amount against the receipt and that the imposition of fine and receipt thereof of the fine amount by R.R.D.A. in B.C. Case No.102 of 2007 to legalize the entire existing structure did not entail any criminal offence, the learned Counsel added and hence the question of any misrepresentation on the part of the Company or the petitioner did not arise.