PURUSHOTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the vigilance as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Bihar State Electricity Board.

(2.) THE instant revision application is directed against the order dated 30.1.2006 passed in Special Case No. 30/1989 by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby the petition for discharge of the petitioner filed under Section 239, Cr PC has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the FIR and during investigation the petitioner's name cropped up and he was added as party on 27.1.1994. He has submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner to frame charges under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120 -B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has further submitted that for the same offences a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner has been exonerated in the said departmental proceeding. Petitioner has filed the order passed in the departmental proceeding as annexed in the petition. He has relied upon the decision reported in "1999 (9) SCC 1, P.S. Rajya V/s. State of Bihar." The petitioner has also submitted that the order of sanction is defective since the same has not been passed by the Board. He has annexed the copy of the Bihar State Electricity Board conduct of business regulations, 1973 to show that only the board can dismiss the petitioner, executive engineer and as such the sanction must be granted by the Court. He has thirdly argued that since last so many years the witnesses are not examined in the case and as such the petitioner's right for speedy trial is being hampered.