Lal Babu vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Anti Corruption Bureau.

This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“for quashing of entire criminal proceedings in connection with Vigilance Case No. 39/2017 arising out of A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 06/2016 lodged

u/s 7/13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and pending in the court of Learned Additional Session’s Judge-XIV-

Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.), Hazaribag with further prayers for quashing of order dated 02.11.2017 whereby and where under cognizance for

offences u/s 7/13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken as well as against order dated 17.07.2019

whereby and where under discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected, both orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge â€" XIV

â€" Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.), Hazaribag.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground on which the present case has been filed is that the petitioner has been exonerated in the

departmental proceeding on the same set of allegation which is involved in the criminal case. The learned counsel has referred to Annexure-4 to the

main petition by which the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner

is fully covered by the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 (P.S. Rajya vs. State of

Bihar)Para 23 and (2013) 11 SCC 130 (Lokesh Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan )Para 25 to 28. The learned counsel submits that considering the

aforesaid judgments, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is fit to be set-aside.

The learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed with bribe

money of Rs. 4,500/- and the present criminal case arises out of a trap case. The learned counsel submits that the allegation in connection with the

departmental proceeding has nothing to do with the trap case. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid two judgments which have been relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation which is involved in the criminal case which relates to demand and

recovery of bribe money, this Court finds that the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding has nothing to do with any

departmental proceedings. Prosecution sanction has already been received. This Court is of the considered view that the allegation in connection with

the trap case has nothing to do with any departmental proceeding.

So far as the judgment passed in the case of P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar (Supra) is concerned, there was no dispute that the allegation which was

there in the departmental proceeding was identical with that of the criminal case and in the present case, it has been vehemently disputed by the

learned counsel for the respondent.

So far as the judgment passed in the case of Lokesh Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) is concerned, this Court finds that in the said case

also, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal case, the records were not available due to which the

investigation was delayed and there was no likelihood of tracing out the records and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceeding against the accused of the said case. The facts and circumstances of the present

case is totally different.

Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the allegation in connection with the trap

case has to be exclusively considered by the learned Special Court dealing with the criminal case and the exoneration of the petitioner in the

departmental proceeding has no bearing in this case and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this

case. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.