SANJEET RANJAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revisions aforesaid have been preferred by the petitioners, namely, Sanjeet Ranjan and Sujeet Ranjan respectively against the impugned order dated 25-1-2003 passed in R.C. 4(A) of 2000 by Sri S. C. Singh, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi whereby the petitions separately filed by both the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging them from the said case were rejected.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these revisions are as follows : R.C. 4(A) of 2000 was instituted against Dr. Nalini Ranjan Prasad Sinha (in short Dr. Sinha) under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the basis of the F.I.R. of informant B. C, Mahto, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, A.H.D., Ranchi. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that Dr. Sinha has retired as Manager, Pig Breeding Farm, Hotwar/Kanke, Ranchi under Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar on 31-1-1995 and by functioning as such as well as in different capacities in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, in different places during the check period between 1-4-1984 and 31-3-1995 amassed huge assets both movable and immovable by corrupt and illegal means which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that Dr. Sinha aforesaid owns immovable properties in the form of house/plots in his name and also in the name of is family members which were acquired during the said check period at Ranchi, Patna and New Delhi which are worth Rs. 24,02,125.00. It is also alleged that he has acquired huge movable properties in the form of bank deposits, fixed deposits, shares, cash, N.S.Cs., Mutual Fund Deposits besides motor vehicles in his name and in the name of his family members worth Rs. 45,26,310.05 approximately. Thus, the total assets of Dr. Sinha during the aforesaid period has been found to be Rs. 69,28,435.00. The case of the prosecution further is that Dr. Sinha has received income in the form of salary and other emoluments during his service period between April, 1984 and March, 1995 amounting to Rs. 10,48,187.00 approximately and his wife Nirmal Sinha and his two sons, namely, Sanjeet and Sujeet (who are the petitioners here) are also reported earning members of the family and the income of the wife as well as his two sons have been assessed as Rs. 6,58,813.00 and Rs. 7,50,000.00 respectively. Assuming the income to be true a total sum of his income and that of his wife and two sons during the check period comes to Rs. 24,57,000.00. It is also alleged that these disproportionate assets acquired by Dr. Sinha during the check period after deducting his and his wifes and two sons income from salary as well as other sources come to Rs. 44,71,435.00 even without considering expenditure on household and other items. Further case of the prosecution is that the standard of living of Dr. Sinha and his family members are very high and lavish and many of his family members were dependant on him and Dr. Sinha had incurred huge expenditure on his maintenance and that of his family members, education of children and their marriage and other day-to-day household items which is to the tune of Rs. 45,80,000.00 and, thus, the total disproportionate assets acquired and expenditure made during the check period by Dr. Sinha after deducting his total income from salary as well as from other sources comes to Rs. 90,51,435.05 which is not likely to be satisfactorily accounted for. In course of investigation it transpired that the wife and two sons of Dr. Sinha held a substantial portion of assets in their names in the commission of the offence of criminal misconduct by Dr. Sinha as per Annexure-B of the charge-sheet under Section 13(l)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act and they did not have any adequate independent income of their own and charge-sheet under Section 13(l)(e) of the Act has been submitted against Dr. Sinha whereas both the petitioners were prosecuted for the (contd. on Col. 2) offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13{l)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. Annexure-B of the charge-sheet gives the summary of the moveable assets held by petitioner-Sujeet Ranjan which is quoted below : @@@1043.htm@@@ The summary of moveable assets held by petitioner Sanjeet Ranjan is quoted below : @@@104301.htm@@@ The entire immovable and movable assets held by Dr. Sinha and his family members in their names at the end of the check period found in the course of investigation is quoted below :@@@ @@@104302.htm@@@

(3.) The learned Court below appears to have meticulously considered the materials on the record and relying upon the ratio of the case of P. Nallammal v. State, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1133 : (AIR 1999 SC 2556) found sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners presuming that the petitioners have committed the offence and rejected the petitions of the petitioners and ordered to frame charge against them.