Bivash Chandra Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.02.2022 passed in Special Case No.05 of 2009 whereby and whereunder, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner-accused was rejected. The F.I.R. lodged by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Patna on 10.01.1991 against the petitioner who was posted as Block Development Officer at Jhanjha Block is the basis of the case. On the basis of the written report, Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 1991 was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(ii) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The main allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner-accused during his 10 years of service had acquired the property disproportionate with the known source of his income under a conspiracy by acts of fraud and forgery. The assets that has been mentioned in the FIR is as follows:

(i) A building in Godda in the name of his father Gangadhar Thakur;

(ii) A plot of land purchased at Deoghar in the name of his wife by registered sale deed in the year 1985 measuring an area of 3795 square feet;

(iii) A house purchased in the name of his relative in the Mohalla-82 at Deoghar;

(iv) A plot purchased in the name of his mother Smt. Bacchi Devi for a sum of Rs.30,000/- in the year 1985 on which a double floor building was constructed;

(v) One Maruti-800 car was purchased in the name of his brother Ganesh Chandra Thakur in 27.06.1987 and;

(vi) Two bank accounts in his name and one fake account in the name of one Vinay Kumar Thakur with a total deposit of Rs.1,48,250/-.

After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Vigilance Department on 02.07.2007 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

After cognizance the petitioner moved before this Court against the order of taking cognizance in Cr.M.P. No. 2683 of 2018 which was dismissed.

The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground of: Firstly, fake account of Vinay Kumar Thakur which is being attributed to this petitioner regarding which during investigation signature and handwriting were examined by the Forensic Laboratory and it did not match and there is no prima facie material to show that the account stood in his name. Secondly, the father of the petitioner was a government servant and the property was purchased way back in the year 1985 from the income of his father. Thirdly, the plot of land that has been purchased by this petitioner on 08.02.1988 regarding which there was no concealment and it was disclosed in the service record as well as in the income tax return. Fourthly, the Maruti-800 car purchased in the name of his brother Dr. G.C. Thakur was funded by his brother who is by occupation a Doctor in U.S.A. Fifthly, during raid conducted in his house no valuable items were received and worth of Rs.80,168/- was assessed by a committee of household articles. Sixthly, his two accounts stood on his name bearing A/c No. 4952 at SBI Hirapur Branch and A/c No. 7254 at S.B.I., Dhanbad Branch has been deposited of Rs.4766/-and Rs.122.82/- respectively.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that even assuming these materials to be true the offence are not at all made out, as it has not been disclosed that who were the recipients and what documents has been forged. As far as the offence of having disproportionate under the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, it is also not made out on the basis of the materials collected so far during investigation.

To buttress his argument, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra & Anr.” (2012) 9 SCC 460, “Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra” (2002) 2 SCC 135 and “GHCL Employees Stocks Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd.” (2013) 4 SCC 505.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of A.C.B. that there are sufficient materials during investigation to make out a prima facie case under the offence charged. The materials inter alia include movable and immovable property acquiring disproportionate property worth Rs.4,75,893/- which was acquired by this petitioner for the check in period 1980-90 under in the name of his relatives and also in Benami accounts in the name of Vinay Thakur.

Having considered the rival submissions on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that at this stage discharge petition can be allowed only if the grounds are not sufficient for raising grave suspicion against the accused person. The probative value of the materials cannot adjudged at this stage and the materials are sufficient for framing of charge.

I find that the learned Court below did not commit any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order to warrant interference by this Court.

The revision petition stands rejected.