Durga Oraon and Aman Munda vs State of Jharkhand and Others

I.A. No. 4009 of 2009

This application has been filed by the petitioner for impleadment of the Director General (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Patna, Director Investigation, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, and Additional Director Investigation, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, as party respondent Nos. 24, 25 and 26 respectively. It has been stated that these Officers being In-charge of the investigation will be in a position to apprise this Court as to whether the averments of the petitioner in regard to the disproportionate assets of the accused-respondents is prima facie correct or not, as they have conducted raids and hence would be able to inform this Court regarding the seizures that have been made in course of the investigation.

This application is not opposed by any of the respondents who have appeared before this Court and we also see no reason to deny this request, as their impleadment might be of assistance to the Court. Hence, this application is allowed and the Officers sought to be impleaded as respondents be arrayed as respondent No. 24, Director General (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Patna, respondent No. 25, Director Investigation, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi, and respondent No. 26, Additional Director Investigation, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi.

Mr. Deepak Roshan has accepted notices on behalf of the added respondent Nos. 24, 25 and 26. He is directed to file counter-affidavit to the averments made in the writ petition within a period of two weeks.

This application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

W.P (PIL) No. 4700/2008 & W.P (PIL) No. 2252/2008

Counsel for the petitioner, the Advocate General representing the State through respondent Nos. 1-10 and counsel for the Income Tax Department were heard at some length, from which it could be gathered that the State Vigilance cases, which were registered at the instance of one Kumar Vinod against respondent No. 14, Sri Hari Narayan Rai and respondent No. 15, Sri Enos Ekka, are proceeding, as per the information furnished by the learned Advocate General.

However, the counsel for the State Vigilance Department, Mr. Kashyap, submitted that whatever have been submitted by the Advocate General is adopted by him on behalf of the State Vigilance Department, with which we are not satisfied. Since the State Vigilance Department is conducting investigation and is impleaded as a party respondent separately, it is the duty of the State Vigilance Department to file a specific reply by way of a counter-affidavit indicating therein the nature of investigation conducted and the materials collected by it. The State Vigilance Department, therefore, shall file a separate reply/counter-affidavit in the matter within a period of two weeks.

The Advocate General further submitted that another case registered at the instance of one Rajeev Sharma against respondent No. 16, Sri Kamlesh Singh, respondent No. 19, Sri Bhanu Pratap Shahi, respondent No. 20, Sri Bandhu Tirkey and respondent No. 21, Sri Madhu Kora, is also being proceeded with, but the investigation has not reached to a conclusion and once the charge-sheet is submitted, information will be furnished to the Court regarding the materials collected against them.

It was further submitted that in so far as the respondent No. 22, Sri Binod Sinha, and respondent No. 23, Sri Sanjay Choudhary, are concerned, no separate case has been registered against them, but, in course of investigation, if they are found to be in collusion or in league with the principal accused, respondent No. 21, Sri Madhu Kora, they are bound to be arrayed as co-accused in the State Vigilance case registered against the respondent Nos. 16, 19, 20 and 21 at the instance of one Rajeev Sharma.

Counsel for the Department of Income Tax, Mr. Khan, on behalf of the Income Tax Department submitted that in some of the cases, enquiry has been concluded and penal proceedings have been initiated.

However, the enquiry that was conducted by the Income Tax Department is no where near the allegations that have been alleged by the petitioner against the accused-respondents and therefore, the question obviously will crop up whether the investigation, in spite of pendency of the State Vigilance cases in which investigation is proceeding, would be a cause sufficient enough to hand over the investigation to the C.B.I.

We are orally informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the question as to whether the High Court can order for enquiry by the C.B.I is a subject-matter of consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, but no order to that effect has been brought to our notice. Counsel for the petitioner has assured that she will try to procure the order to that effect provided the same is in existence.

The counsel for the State Vigilance Department, in the meantime, shall also apprise this Court as to the outcome of the investigation, which has been conducted so far against the accused-respondents referred to hereinbefore.

Besides the aforesaid direction, we also deem it appropriate to direct the Advocate General to apprise this Court as to what is the stand of the State in regard to the question raised by the petitioner and whether the investigation in regard to the accused-respondents is fit to be handed over to the C.B.I or not. This is essential in the wake of the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner reported in Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , wherein investigation was permitted to continue simultaneously by the State Vigilance as also by the C.B.I. We have noticed in the case referred to hereinbefore that the State of Delhi had issued notification u/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, by which the case was referred to the C.B.I for investigation and the C.B.I had registered a second F.I.R in the matter, but in the instant case, the stand of the State is totally unclear as the State has not come out with any reply as to what it proposes to do in the matter, which will offer an insight to the Court whether the matter is still fit to be handed over to the C.B.I although the investigation is being conducted by the State Vigilance Department.

The affidavits to be filed by the respondents shall be served on the counsel for the petitioner as also on other respondents well in advance, but not later than two days before the matter is placed for further hearing.

The matter be, therefore, posted again after two weeks on 28.1.2010.