DEODATT @ DEODATT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 11.11.2008 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi under Sections 161/162/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(i) (d) (ii) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused persons except one Sumant Singh, who was not sent for trial for want of appropriate sanction on 11.11.2008 without explaining the inordinate delay of 8 months. Neither the Investigating Officer explained about the inordinate delay of about 16 years in submission of the police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure nor the Special Judge, Vigilance could be able to explain as to why cognizance of the offence could be taken after about 7 months of the receipt of the charge-sheet and it would be evident that the petitioners from the very beginning have been denied the constitutional right of his speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In Vakil Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 2009 2 EastCriC 187 the Apex Court held:

(3.) Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and sanction is required for the prosecution of a person under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, who are public servants but may be with the aid of Section 120-B the other persons may also be prosecuted and in that view of the matter the sanction under Section 19 of the Special Act would be sine qua non. It was stated that sanction was obtained for the prosecution of the accused persons and this fact has got bearing in the cognizance order but the learned Special Judge while taking cognizance of the offence on 11.11.2010 clearly admitted that the case diary did not contain any sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner and others except that Sumant Singh, Assistant in the Office of District Supply Officer was not sent up for trial for want of sanction for his criminal prosecution. On the fact, learned senior counsel submitted that complicity of the petitioner appears in paragraph Nos. 65 and 68 of the case diary as also in the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police as contained in paragraph No.169 of the case diary. The simple allegation against the petitioner was that he had prepared a Bank Draft of Rs.6,000/- with the aid of Sumant Singh in the name of the son of the principal accused Uday Singh. There were certain procedure for preparation of draft and in that regard printed application duly signed by the applicant is filed with the amount in cash or by different modes and after preparation of Demand Draft the same is delivered to the applicant after obtaining his signature on the issue register of the Bank no investigation was made by the Investigating Officer to ascertain as to whether draft of Rs.6,000/- was prepared at the instance of the petitioner or other. Paragraph Nos. 65 and 68 are the simple reproduction of F.I.R. which does not entail any offence, much less alleged against the petitioner.