LAWS(JHAR)-2012-5-190

DURGA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Decided On May 17, 2012
DURGA ORAON Appellant
V/S
State Of Jharkhand And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have perused the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. It has been submitted that in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 the charge -sheet No. 21 of 2000 was filed on 5th October, 2009 against two accused persons and in pursuance of the order dated 4th August, 2010 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008, the case has been transferred to the C.B.I. for further action. In Vigilance P.S. Case No. 09 of 2009, charge -sheet No. 05/10 dated 28th January. 2010 and 06/10 dated 28th January, 2010 respectively have been submitted against Madhu Koda and Kamlesh Singh. Pursuant to order dated 4th August, 2010 passed in the same W.P. [PIL), the case was transferred to the C.B.I. for further action. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2010 wherein there are 20 named accused persons, charge -sheet. No. 11/11 dated 28th February, 2011 against Vinod Kumar Sinha and charge -sheet No. 23/11 dated 30th March, 2011 against Madhu Koda have already been submitted. However, the case is under supplementary investigation. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 38/10 charge -sheet No. 9/11 dated 23rd February, 2011 has been filed against Madhu Koda and Vinod Sinha and by virtue of Notification No. 6/CBI -709/2011 -3313 dated 20.08.2011 of Jharkhand Government(Home), this case has also been transferred to the C.B.I. for further action. In paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is submitted that yet another charge -sheet No. 15/10 has been submitted on 15th April, 2010.

(2.) HOWEVER , it appears from the affidavit that in the cases either investigation has not been completed with respect to some of the accused persons and part charge -sheets have been filed. It also appears from the above affidavit that the matters have been sent to the C.B.I. obviously for investigation. At this Juncture, it is relevant to mention here that according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner there appears to be a gap between the Income Tax Department and the C.B.I. and therefore the investigation may not be going on against some of the accused persons, who were also involved in the cases of criminal activities.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the C.B.I. is in a position to submit status report by tomorrow (18.5.2012).