Anil Kumar Gupta vs The State of Jharkhand

R.R. Prasad

This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Khunti Police Station Case no. 60 of 2000 (G.R. No. 241 of 2000) including the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 an 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time is said to have been posted as Junior Engineer in Works Section of Rural Engineering Organization, Bundu, Khunti. It does appear that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi when came to know that several engineers including the petitioner posted in Work Division of Rural Engineering Organization, Rachi who had been entrusted with the works of construction/repairing of the road have indulged themselves in several kind of irregularities, constituted a committee, who inspected different works done by the accused persons and came to the finding that the engineers without getting the work completed got the entire amount withdrawn and thereby they have misappropriated the said amount.

On such allegation, a case was registered as Khunti P.S. case no. 60 of 2000 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 an 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The matter was taken up for investigation. However, during investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any materials showing culpability of the petitioner in the alleged offence and hence, submitted a final form against this petitioner and other accused whereby the petitioner and others were exonerated from the accusation, still the court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 an 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code which is under challenge.

Mr. P.K. Deomani, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the allegation that the engineers including the petitioner who had been entrusted with the works of repairing of some roads did withdraw the entire amount without getting the work completed, case was registered against the petitioner and others but the Investigating Officer during investigation did find that this petitioner at the relevant point of time had never been posted as Junior Engineer at Khunti and therefore, the question of entrusting job of construction or repairing of the roads never arises. Accordingly, final form was submitted whereby the petitioner was exonerated from the charges, still the court took cognizance of the offence which is quite illegal.

It was further submitted that whatever had been gathered by the Investigating Officer has also come during departmental proceeding where enquiring officer has also found that the petitioner had never been entrusted with the job of construction/repairing of the road and thereby the court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and therefore, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.

Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner gets substantiated from the report of the enquiry officer which has been annexed as Annexure 2 in this application wherein enquiring officer after holding enquiry has categorically came to the finding that the petitioner had never been entrusted with the job of construction/repairing of road and that he had never been advanced any money for construction/repairing of the roads.

This fact has also been found by the Investigating Officer during investigation, still the court has taken cognizance of the offence alleged and thereby the court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences.

Furthermore, when on the same charges on which FIR had been lodged, the petitioner has been exonerated in a departmental proceeding, entire criminal proceeding warrants to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, wherein it has been held as follows:

The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.

Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Khunti P.S. case no. 60 of 2000 including the order dated 18.11.2008 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.