ABHISHEKH SINGH @ ABHESIKH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Kumar Binod had fried a complaint, vide Complaint Case No. 1 of 2009 on 20.1.2009 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi against four accused persons including Bhanu Pratap Sahi, the then Minister in the State of Jharkhand alleging therein that all the accused persons amassed properties disproportionate to their known source of income. The Special Judge on receiving the complaint sent it before the Vigilance Police Station for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. case no. 09 of 2009 was registered which was even investigated upon. However, this court passed an order in W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 on 4.8.2008 directing the C.B.I. to take the matter for further investigation. Pursuant to that, the C.B.I. having registered the case as R.C. No. 5(A)/2010-AHD-Ranchi under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the. Prevention of Corruption Act took up the matter for further investigation.

(2.) The C.B.I. having completed investigation submitted charge sheet on 22.12.2011 against the named accused persons as well as others including this petitioner, who happens to be nephew of the then Minister Bhanu Pratap Sahi alleging therein that during investigation it got transpired that this petitioner and other nephew of Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sahi are the Directors of M/s. Angesh Trading Co. Ltd. and M/s. Sonanchal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. which companies were initially taken over by the efforts made by Ajay Singh, a close friend of Mr. Bhanu Pratap. Sahi. Investment of Rs. 6,06,35,000/- crores was infused in those two companies by way of investments from three companies of one Atul Jain in exchange of cash to the tune of Rs. 5,68,35,000/-, remaining amount of Rs. 38 lakhs came from M/s. Magis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi which company was being run by one Ankur Mittal. Both Atul Jalan and Ankur Mittal had recovered their monies by showing selling of the shares to various companies but it was found that the money had been arranged from the grain merchants who had admitted that they had just given cheques in lieu of cash given to them and even Atul in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted this fact.

(3.) The court on filing of the charge sheet took cognizance of the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, vide its order dated 3.1.2012 which is under challenge.