LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-115

DILIP KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On March 13, 2019
DILIP KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the rejection of the discharge application which was numbered as Cr. Revision No.648 of 2016. This Court by terms of order dtd. 22/6/2018 quashed the impugned order dtd. 30/1/2016 passed in R.C. Case No. 03(A)/2010-R by the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi and the matter was remanded back to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing respective sides. He further submitted that after hearing both the sides, the court below again by impugned order dtd. 27/7/2018 has rejected his application for discharge. He also submitted that the court below has again not discussed the materials collected against this petitioner and has merely reiterated the averments made in the charge-sheet. He further submitted that one information obtained by Shri Sardendu Nag, Advocate through R.T.I. from the Department of Road Construction, Road Circle, Saraikella-Kharsawan dtd. 10/1/2012 which has been marked as Annexure-6 herein will disclose that no defect and liabilities were found on the surfacing of bitumen and no amount was spent for the repair of the said road.

(3.) Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that this Court while setting aside the impugned order dtd. 30/1/2016 has remanded back the matter before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi for passing a fresh order as the court has not at all considered the materials collected in course of investigation and has not given any independent finding to that effect. He further submitted that now the court below after consideration of the materials collected against this petitioner, who is none other than the Director of the Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. who was executing the contract work of widening and strengthening of the road and the documents submitted with regard to obtaining the bitumen from the oil companies had submitted forged documents to the Department. This petitioner along with his brother was operating a bank account in which the payment received from the Road Construction Department was credited. Although, as per allegation, no such bitumen were purchased from any oil company either Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. or Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Now the court below has already framed charge upon co-accused including this petitioner.