MANJU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ACB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the A.C.B.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initially order dated 18th February, 2017 passed in Special Case No. 18 of 2011 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011 was under challenge as Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi dismissed the discharge application filed on behalf of this petitioner. He further submitted that subsequently the Court below has framed charge upon this petitioner by terms of order dated 9th January, 2018. This subsequent development was brought on record by filing Interlocutory Application No.8704 of 2018 which was allowed on 2nd November, 2018.

(3.) Learned senior counsel submitted that petitioner is serving as Block Supply Officer under the Government of Jharkhand and the Vigilance Department lodged a case of disproportion of assets to the tune of around Rs.19,00,000/- and odd for which F.I.R. was lodged. Subsequently, the charge sheet was submitted on 31st December, 2014 in which the amount of disproportionate asset was found to be Rs.42,03,316/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs three thousand three hundred sixteen). He further submitted that the A.C.B. approached the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Jharkhand through letter no.5102 dated 26th April, 2013 (Annexure-4) in which the difference of income was mentioned as Rs.1,43,102/-. Thereafter, the Departmental Secretary through memo no.3111 dated 12th June, 2015 granted prosecution sanction after perusing the said letter of S.P., Vigilance Bureau as well as the papers such as F.I.R., case diary, supervision note and other documents attached with it. Therefore, the presumption would be that the prosecution sanction was granted on the amount Rs.1,43,102/-. The court below framed charge upon this petitioner on 9th January, 2018 and the charge was that the petitioner found in possession of disproportionate asset of Rs.42,03,316/- or more and on this amount the charge under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed. This difference of amount appearing in the charge sheet and the letter of S.P. asking for the prosecution sanction as well as the amount appearing in the charge, the exact disproportionate assets have not been correctly assessed by the prosecuting agency.