Arbind Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar, J.—The sole petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.9.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "Special Judge") in Special Case No. 41 of 2009 (arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2009). By the said order, learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report, in respect of malpractices and irregularities committed in examination of Diploma in Pharmacy for the year 2002(II) New, an F.I.R., vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2009, was lodged. As per the F.I.R., it was found that in respect of examination in question, with an intention to earn money, several irregularities were committed in examining answer-books and examinees were incorrectly declared pass or fail. It was noticed that in the said examination, in the answer-books, high numbers were given to such examinees, who had written nonsense and also written lyrics of song. Similarly, the candidates, who had rightly answered the questions, were shown fail. It was found that in conspiracy with accused public servants, such offences were committed. In the preliminary enquiry itself, involvement of accused persons, including the petitioner, who was at the relevant time posted as an Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna alongwith the then Additional Director-cum-Examination Controller, the then Principal of the Patna Medical College & Hospital, Professor/Lecturer of Banaras Hindu University (B.H.U.), Varanasi and others had surfaced. Accordingly, nine persons, including the petitioner, were arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. During investigation also, allegations were found correct. Accordingly, prosecution sanction was obtained for prosecuting public servants, including the petitioner. Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted. After submission of charge-sheet, learned Special Judge, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of offences, which has been assailed in the present petition.

Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Manish Kumar-2, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the order of cognizance, has argued that save and except that the petitioner alongwith one S.N. Sharma, the Controller of the Examination in question, had gone to Varanasi to hand over the sealed answer-sheets, nothing more has been collected to connect the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner in discharge of official duties and as per the direction of the authority concerned, had simply carried the answer-sheets in sealed cover to the B.H.U., Varanasi and handed over to the concerned person. He submits that in view of direction given by his superiors, it was duty of the petitioner to obey the direction and as such, he has simply obeyed the direction of the authority concerned and for discharging such official duty, he may not be held responsible for commission of any offence in the present case. In support of his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court, reported in Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . He submits that even the Supreme Court has approved the setting aside of the F.I.R. in absence of any evidence or material. Accordingly, it has been prayed for quashing of order of cognizance, so far as petitioner is concerned.

Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned Assistant Counsel for Vigilance has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in the F.I.R. itself, there is specific accusation against the petitioner.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the allegation as per the F.I.R. is commission of several offences in relation to the examination in question. It further appears that it was a result of conspiracy in between the accused persons. Moreover, in this case, prosecution sanction was also provided by the competent authority. Apparently, there is no error in the order of cognizance warranting any interference by this Court. So far as Sarabjit Singh''s case (supra) is concerned, it is true that in absence of any evidence or material, one may not be prosecuted, but if there is material, particularly; to show conspiracy in between the parties, the order of cognizance may not be interfered with. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.