JAGDISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the matter of bail. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who was Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, from April 1992 to January 1995, on being found guilty for various offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 2.5 lacs under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and further rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 2.5 lacs under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that the appellant even after having knowledge that the officials of the AHD Department are withdrawing money fraudulently from different Treasuries on the basis of forged allotment letters to stall the matter from being handed over to the Vigilance on the plea of matter being enquired into by the Public Accounts Committee and that he also gave protection/patronage to one of the officials of the AHD Department by making recommendation for extension of his services and that in lieu of giving protection of the officials of the AHD Department, he not only received illegal gratification from the persons involved in the case but also enjoyed hospitalities by availing Air Tickets purchased by them but the prosecution has failed to establish any of the circumstances as aforesaid on the basis of which the order of conviction has been recorded.

(2.) In this regard it was submitted that the C.B.I. in order to prove the charge of stalling the enquiry to be taken by the Vigilance has proved two documents dated 17.6.1994 (Ext. 38/314) and 24.6.1994 but the court has failed to take notice of the fact that the Vigilance had already taken up the matter for enquiry when it came to know about the illegal withdrawal from the Treasuries by AHD Department and that it was for the Government to accept the proposal or not to accept the proposal as there would have been no hurdle in getting the matter enquired by other Agencies and therefore, Vigilance should have proceeded with the enquiry and would not have taken lame excuse for not taking up the enquiry/investigation in view of the aforesaid two documents.

(3.) Further it was submitted that, according to the case of the C.B.I, the appellant made recommendation for extension of service of one of the officials of the AHD Department, namely, R.K. Das, an approver, who was examined as P.W. 195, vide its letter dated 3.2.1994 (Ext. 38/272) but nothing wrong was committed by this appellant being public representative in making recommendation when nothing was there against him which would be evident from the evidence of I.O. (P.W. 348), who has stated that against R.K. Das no departmental proceeding was pending and moreover, the recommendation was advisory in nature which was never binding upon the Government.