SOMNATH TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

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 Sections 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 organised and currency notes bearing No. 58F 711551 to 58P 711600 of Rs. 10.00denomination, 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, organised 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. 38456.00 with receipt book and signed notes of Rupees one thousand were recovered. The said amount was illegally realised 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 realised 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.) Learned GP 2 appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that since the State Government, after fresh investigation by CID, has found that a preplanned conspiracy was hatched up to implicate this petitioner falsely, a fresh investigation may be ordered to be made but no interim relief should be given to the petitioner.