SOMNATH TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as Enforcement Officer in the Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, has prayed for reinvestigation of the case in Garhwa P.S. Case No. 214/2000 under Secs. 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation is that petitioner was apprehended on the written information of Additional Superintendent of Police, Garhwa alleging that on 19.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. he went to the residence of the Superintendent of Police, where on Dr. Rajiv Kumar, employee of Bihar Caustic and Chemical Ltd. and one Chitranjan Kumar, Executive Magistrate, were sitting. Dr. Rajiv Kumar stated that his Commander jeep bearing No. BR 15P -0259 was seized by the petitioner. The petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000 for releasing the jeep and lastly it was agreed at Rs. 1,500.00 . On this information, a raiding party was organized and currency notes bearing No. 58F 711551 to 58P 711600 of Rs. 10.00 denomination, 50 in numbers were given to Dr. Rajiv Kumar to hand over to this petitioner on demand, who was staying a Navneet Hotel, Room No. 10. As soon as the amount was paid, the trap party, organized by the informant, surrounded the hotel. One person came out from Room No. 10 and entered into Room No. 11 and from the Room of this petitioner, nothing was recovered, but from Room No. 11, on search, one attachi containing Rs. 38456/ - with receipt book and signed notes of Rupees one thousand were recovered. The said amount was illegally realized by the petitioner was Munshi Siyaram Sharma.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that State Government has got the matter enquired by CID and CID has come to a finding that the FIR, Seizure list and the station diary entry are based on malafide intention, which is the outcome of preplanned conspiracy against this petitioner. In this case, petitioner was discharging his official duty and seized the vehicle, which was illegally carrying passengers and has also fined and realized the fine amount. Even then, no sanction was obtained to lodge a criminal case against this petitioner, the State Government has ordered for fresh investigation by the CID and the SP, CID found that it was the outcome of malafide intention and preplanned conspiracy and found this petitioner to be innocent. It is stated that not a single witness of the prosecution has supported the case of the prosecution.

(3.) HEARD the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned GP 2, on behalf of the State and perused the copy of the secret enquiry report annexed with the writ petition. It is stated that this secret enquiry has been done by DSP, CID and the DSP, in his report, has pointed out several lapses, which appear to have been committed in course of lodging of the FIR and in preparation of seizure list. It appears that earlier this petitioner had challenged the sanction order but a Bench of this Court found that the sanction order has been given after perusal of documents and in course of trial the prosecution will prove whether sanction has properly been given or not. Here in the instant case, by this writ application the petitioner has challenged the submission of charge -sheet annexed with the secret report of DSP, CID, which was conducted on the basis of some direction from the State Government, although the direction given by the State Government is not annexed with the application. However, a Police Officer of the rank of DSP posted in CID has conducted the secret enquiry and pointed out many defects in lodging of the FIR, preparation of seizure list and other materials and, therefore, it is prayed for fresh investigation by the CID.