In a revision against the rejection of a discharge application, the High Court of Jharkhand held that fixation of pension did not negate the petitioner's complicity in an illegal demand. The court dismissed the application finding no reason to interfere with the lower court order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1054 of 2015
-- Hari Charan Sinku @ Hare Babu .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through its Commissioner, Vigilance Bureau … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. T. N. Verma, Advocate --- Order No. 04 Dated 06 th March, 2018
The State of Jharkhand through its Commissioner, Vigilance Bureau
Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the ACB.
This application is directed against the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Chaibasa in Special Case No. 09 of 2012 by which the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner, has been rejected.
It has been stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there was no demand as the pension of the complainant was fixed and he had also received the money prior to the complaint made. Learned senior counsel further submits that without there being any involvement on the part of the petitioner, he has geen implicated in this case, as the petitioner is merely a clerk in Chaibasa Treasury.
Learned counsel appearing for the ACB opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
It appears that on the basis of the complaint made by one Jai Prakash Kerketta a trap was organized pursuant to which the amount which was demanded illegally has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is working as a clerk in the District Treasury Chaibasa. The complaint reveals that there was a demand of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner. Merely because the pension was fixed and the same has started flowing to the complainant would not render the complicity of the petitioner doubtful, as the fixation of pension could have been done on account of acknowledgment of satisfaction of demand of illegal gratification.
Since there appears sufÏcient complicity of the petitioner, the learned court below has rightly rejected the discharge application
preferred by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is accordingly dismissed.
MK
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for discharge.
Whether mere fixation of pension to the complainant absolves the petitioner of interest in the illegal demand case.
Hari Charan Sinku @ Hare Babu
The State of Jharkhand through its Commissioner, Vigilance Bureau
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
