SHAMBHU SHARAN LAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr PC is directed against the order dated 30.8.2003 passed in R.C. Case No. 4 (A) /86 (D), whereby and whereunder the learned special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad has reopened the above mentioned case.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are that a case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by one Rohan Manjhi and he has alleged against the petitioner that he was demanding Rs. 200/ - as illegal gratification from him on the text of issuing sick/fitness certificate, which is a pre -condition for a worker intending to join the duty after sickness after some period. The petitioner was a Senior Medical Officer, Lohapatti Colliery dispensary, Area II, Dhanbad. After Kiti Rana Versus State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) registration of the case, a trap was led on the petitioner - accused and he was caught red -handed, while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 200/ - from the complainant Rohan Manjhi in presence of independent witnesses. After completion, of investigation charge -sheet was submitted on 30.10.1986 and charge was framed on 16.9.1994 for alleged commission of offence under Section 161, IPC and 5 (2) read with Section 5 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 30.10.1998 third charge -sheet witness was examined and the case was posted for further cross examination. Thereafter, as a result of guidelines issued in Rajdeo Sharmas case, reported in 1998 (2) East Cr C 1092 (SC) : 1998 Cr LJ 4596 and relating to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Court below closed the evidence of the prosecution, vide order dated 8.3.1999, and this order was passed on a petition filed by the petitioner. CBI challenged the order dated 8.3.1999 before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 3854/99 but the High Court dismissed Cr. Misc. Case. Aggrieved by the order passed in Cr. Misc. by the High Court, the CBI preferred SLP No. 19228/99 against the order dated 10.8.1999 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3854/99 but the Hon ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP by order dated 7.1.2000. Thereafter prosecution filed a petition under Section 311, Cr PC praying therein to summon witnesses but the same was also rejected by order dated 3.4.2000 and against that order CBI again moved the High Court and filed Misc. Case No. 5154/2000 against the order dated 15.1.2001. Thereafter prosecution filed a petition on 21.9.2002 for reopening the case in the light of decision, reported in 2000 Cr LJ ,2547, P. Ramchandra Rao V/s. State of Karnataka, wherein it has been held that no time limit can be prescribed for conclusion of a criminal trial and time limit prescribed in Rajdeo Sharma 'scase was overruled and this case has not been finally decided or resulted in discharge or acquittal. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid petition and the learned Court below after hearing the parties allowed the petition of the prosecution dated 21.9.2002, vide order date 30.8.2003.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that cognizance was taken in the year 1986 and charges were framed in 1994 and fill 1988 only three witnesses could be examined by the prosecution and in view of the decision in Rajdeo Sharma 'scase (supra), learned special Judge closed the case on the petition of the petitioner on 8.3.1999 and thereafter prosecution initiated its grievance against closure of the case at all the forums and Cr. Misc. Petition to that effect was moved before the Patna High Court and on dismissal of Cr. Misc. Petition, SLP was filed, which was also dismissed and thereafter taking advantage of the case reported in P. Ramchandra Rao V/s. State of Karnataka (supra), the learned special Judge reopened the case in 2003. The learned special Judge should not have reopened the case because in the instant case prosecution had gone -up to the Supreme Court and had filed SLP and that was dismissed. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is height of the matter that in a period of four years right from 1994 only three witnesses could be examined and petitioner has been facing rigours of case from 1986 and as such, more than 18 years have elapsed. It was also submitted that the guidelines, as enunciated in P. Ramchandra Rao 'scase (supra), will not apply in the instant case because prosecution has gone upto the Supreme Court, from where SLP filed on behalf of the prosecution was dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court and, therefore, this guideline will not apply in this case. The learned counsel further pointed out that the harassing attitude of the prosecution will be clear from the fact that after SLP was dismissed the prosecution wanted to take help of Section 311, Cr PC but in that attempt also CBI failed but when judgment in P. Ramchandra Rao 'scase (supra) came, then prosecution made on delay in filing a petition before the learned special Judge for reopening of the case and learned special Judge, after hearing the parties, reopened the case.