Ishwar Chandra Jha vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—Facts of the case, spelt out in the first information report, which are not in much details, can be noticed with brevity. Some officials were deputed for preparation of a list of persons, whose houses were damaged in floods, on account of breach of the eastern embankment of Kosi river. The matter was processed and 29 number of persons were identified, whose houses suffered damage due to breach of eastern embankment of Kosi river and damage due to said flood was estimated to be Rs. 3,655/- payable to the beneficiaries of the flood victims. However, when local inspection was made by the Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa and other officials, it came to notice that none of the houses belonging to these 29 persons had suffered damage, though amounts had already been released to them.

After a Police case was registered, Police, on conclusion of investigation, submitted final form disclosing paucity of evidence. However, that was not the end of the chapter as after Department of Vigilance took up the matter for making a deep probe, a special case came to be registered and on conclusion of investigation, Department of Vigilance submitted charge sheet against the Petitioner and others, suggesting complicity of the Petitioner, too in the scam. When the matter came up before Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No. 16 of 1995, the. Presiding Officer, in seisin of the proceeding, took cognizance under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and also that of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offended Petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance taken by the Court below directing the Petitioner to be put on trial.

Prosecution of the Petitioner was sought to be negatived on promises that even accepting the prosecution version to be true on face value, Petitioner had only forwarded the said proposal received from the Circle Officer to the Collector through. Additional Collector, Saharsa for sanction, who had eventually sanctioned the grants. Contentions are raised that the Petitioner who was then Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa, had not personally prepared the list and hence there could not have been his complicity in the episode. He was neither sanctioning/disbursing officer nor he had anything to do with preparation of list of the beneficiaries and what was done by him was in usual course of business about forwarding the list to the Collector through the Additional Collector, Saharsa. Refuting the accusations, learned Counsel would urge that while the Petitioner was made scape goat for no good reasons, the public authorities like Collector, who had sanctioned the grants, was permitted to go scot free. Since the list of the flood victims had been prepared by the officials, in that view of the matter also, Petitioner had nothing to do with the scam and in the matter of payment also, the Petitioner do not have his say as disbursements were made by the Anchal level officers. Other submission was that apart from the fact that the Petitioner was now a retired officer, in view of paltry amount involved in the matter, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the prosecution to continue.

There may or may not be direct complicity of the Petitioner, all those, who were involved in the conspiracy, had been brought under the net by the Vigilance, who with connivance with each other facilitated release of grants to the beneficiaries notwithstanding there being no good evidence about they being flood victims. The net of conspiracy is too wide to be narrowed down to a particular point. There is no gain saying that after the list of beneficiaries, had been forwarded to the Petitioner by the Circle Officer, it was imperative on his part to personally satisfy about genuineness of the claim of the beneficiaries and if he had Knot done so, his case would be covered Swell within the net of conspiracy.

The proceeding is at the stage of Inception when cognizance had been taken by the court below. This Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction vested in it, is not expected to embark on an inquiry about genuineness of allegations or otherwise, at this stage which in fact is the function of the trial court. This Court is not expected to hold a mini trial at this stage and even the probable defence of the Petitioner would pot be germane to decide the issue under Consideration. If the accusations, attributed to the Petitioner, prima facie constitute a case, in my view, the court below was perfectly within its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence to put the Petitioner at trial, in course of which the bona fide of accusation shall be meticulously judged, also regard being had to the defence of the Petitioner.

In the circumstances, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, any observation made Herein shall not prejudice the parties, the same having been made entirely with an object to determine the issue agitated before this Court at this stage.