SATYAM KASTURI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before coming to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the Vigilance, the order which was passed on 20.3.2015 needs to be recorded which reads as under:

(2.) Mr. Soumitra Sen, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when something wrong was found on the part of the authority of JREDA in entrusting M/s.PPS Enviro Private Limited to execute work without following norms the statements of the petitioners, who happen to be the Directors of M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited, was recorded before lodgment of the case. However, when the case was lodged, the petitioners were also made accused though the petitioners cannot be held responsible for non-adhering to any rule or norms by M/s.JREDA and thereby the petitioner was quite sure that no culpability would be found on the part of the petitioner but the Vigilance when submitted charge sheet, it also made M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited and also its Directors accused to which these petitioners had no knowledge. In course of time, warrant of arrest was issued and subsequently, even the process under Sec. 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued against the petitioner which has been challenged before this Court but the petitioner would not be challenging the propriety and legality of the order at this moment, rather the petitioner would be surrendering before the court but the court be directed to consider the case as to whether there has been at all any necessity of taking the petitioner in custody which the court should always consider in view of the decision rendered in a case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2012) 9 SCC 791].

(3.) As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that the Investigating Officer after making full compliance of the provision of the Code made requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest and the court being satisfied with that had issued warrant of arrest first and then process under Sec. 82 and now even the process under Sec. 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued.