RAJENDAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by Special Judge-V, C.B.I (AHD Scam), Ranchi in R.C No.31A of 1996 rejecting the application filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby prayer had been made to direct the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation of the case for determining the role being played by the Accountant General, Bihar in the matter relating to illegal withdrawal of money from the Treasury. The grievances which have been raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that upon audit being made of drawl of the amount related to Animal Husbandry Department for the year 1987-88 to 1994-95, by Accountant General, annual reports were prepared. It were recorded that there have been excess drawl of the amount but it is adjustable. Subsequently, under the order of the Patna High Court and also the Hon ble Supreme Court, when the matter relating to excess drawl of the amount from the Treasury related to Animal Husbandry Department was referred to C.B.I, the Accountant General, Bihar in order to save his skin got the transaction re-audited and then it was reported that there had been fraudulent withdrawal of the amount from the Treasury for the year 1987-88 to 1994-95.

(2.) It was further contended that the Accountant General does not have any power under the rule to take up the matter for special audit, rather it could be done only with permission granted by the State Government. In such situation, connivance of the Accountant Generalwith other accused persons could not be ruled out but the Investigating Officer did not investigate the case from the angle as to whether there was any connivance of the Accountant General even though circumstances stated above strongly go to suggest that the accused persons in connivance with the Accountant General withdrew the amount fraudulently and therefore, an application was filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the Investigating Officer to take up the matter for further investigation so far it relates to the role being played by the Accountant General in illegal/fraudulent withdrawal of the money from the Treasury.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that where it appears to the court that serious irregularities have been committed in the investigation, the court may direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.