DURGA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two cases i.e., R.C. case No. 4 A of 2010 and R.C. Case No. 5 A of 2010 are the cases pending before the C.B.I., in view of the order of this Court dated 4.08.2010, which are arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew out attention to the earlier order dated 4.08.2009, wherein it has been observed that it could reasonably inferred that the allegation of the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets of respondent nos. 14 to 20 is correct even as per the Income Tax returns which have been field by them. However, the Court observed that further details in this regard will be furnished by the Income Tax Department to this court and thereafter opinion may be formed as to what are the steps to be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the observations of this Court with respect to having disproportionate assets with respondent nos. 14 to 20, the C.B.I. should have enquired into the matter of possessing the disproportionate assets by respondent nos. 17, 18 and 20 against whom as per his information, no investigation is going on, either by the C.B.I. or by the State Vigilance Department. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the C.B.I. has completed the investigation in R.C. Case No. 4 A of 2010 and submitted Challan paper in January, 2012 in the Court. However, in R.C case no. 5 A of 2010, interim charge-sheet has been filed against some of the accused and remaining investigation is about to complete and they are likely to take step forward in a short period of couple of days only.

(2.) After going through the various orders, we are of the considered opinion that the State Government may disclose whether any other Vigilance Case or any police case or any P.C. Case is registered against the respondent and the persons connected with them and involved in the same alleged illegal activity and if any of the case has been registered against the respondents of this petition and other persons, then what is the stage of investigation at the State Vigilance Agency level in the criminal cases. We may make it clear that two cases have been pointed out to be registered by the Vigilance Department, which are Special Case No. 69 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2010 and Special case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010. The facts of these cases are not on record and, therefore, the State may disclose whether these cases have also some relevance with the allegations levelled against these respondents or not. In either case, whether it has' any ' relevance with the present controversy or otherwise also, the State Government may submit the status report of those cases i.e., Special Case No. 69 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2010 and Special case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010. The C.B.I. is also directed to submit whether in continuation of Special case No. 39 of 2010 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 38 of 2010, the matter has been referred to the C.B.I and if so, then, the C.B.I. may state what is the progress in the said case. After getting all the facts in relation to these matter, an appropriate order may be passed with respect to the prayer made by the petitioner. However, we are making it clear pendency of this petition and because of this order the C.B.I. may be free to look into the involvement of other persons i.e. respondents or other which the C.B.I. found necessary in accordance with the investigation.

(3.) In view of the order dated 10.1.2012 (paragraph 8), Directorate of Enforcement has submitted a report in the matter of cases registered under the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005. As per the report the Directorate of Enforcement has already submitted seven complaints before the Special Court against various accused persons till now, which has been mentioned in the chart at paragraph 4 of the report and according to the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, there is involvement of total amount of Rs. 3536.34 crores. As already stated, this is the position till as on today as investigation is going on. As per the Directorate of Enforcement, the investigation outside the India, letters of request have been sent to Dubai, Indonesia, Thialand, Liberia and Swedan and in a matter pending investigation about the allegation relating to the money laundering to Dubai, the estimated business involving Rs. 200 crores approximately whereas in Liberia funds have been illegally transferred from India for purchasing the mines there and investigation is pending in relation to the money laundering to Thailand and Indonesia and these also relating to the mining operations. It has also been stated that Income Tax Department also has found several documents disclosing huge investments in various countries by the accused persons. Apart from above, the investigation is going on in India against 13 accused persons, names of which have been disclosed by the Directorate of Enforcement. It is also pointed out that one of the accused, Sanjay Choudhary has been arrested in UAE and his deportation to India is in process, which is being done by the C.B.I. The Directorate of Enforcement has also disclosed that proceedings against several accused as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the report is going on.