Dismissed

Digambar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through a C B

Jharkhand HC21 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./228/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a quashing petition filed under Section 451 CrPC challenging Special Judge Vigilance orders. The main court upheld the rejection of petitions seeking release of seized government funds for labourers payment and de-freezing a salary account subject to ongoing supplementary investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected; interim order, if any, stands vacated; pending interlocutory application dismissed as not pressed.

Digambar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through a C B — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 228 of 2019

¶3

Digambar Singh … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, Advocate For the A.C.B. : Mr. T.N. Verma, Spl. P.P. ---

¶8

07 /21.01.2020 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶9

2. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party- Anti Corruption Bureau. 3. This case has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh in Vigilance Case No.52 of 2016, corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.49 of 2016 registered under Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of amount of Rs.31,50,040/- which was seized by the Bureau on 25.07.2016 from the house and for de-freezing the salary account of the petitioner being SB account No.20111071603 in State Bank of India, Matwari Branch, Hazaribagh, has been rejected by the learned Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh, and the case is now said to be pending in the court of the learned Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh in Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 2016.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 two petitions filed by the petitioner who is an accused in the case, were dismissed.

¶11

¶12

5. The first petition was with a prayer to release an amount of Rs.31,50,040/- which was seized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 25.07.2016 during residential search of the petitioner at Hazaribagh and a prayer was also made that a condition be put upon the petitioner to deposit the said amount in the account of Range Officer, Bagodar within a period of seven days and thereafter, he will submit a certificate to that effect, so that the payment could be ensured to the labourers by the Government Department. It is specific case of the petitioner that this amount which was seized from his house was for the purposes of payment to the labouers. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this money is Government money and the same should go in the hands of the government so that the labourers’ payment could be made.

¶13

6. So far as the second petition filed before the learned court below is concerned, the same related to de-freezing of the salary account of the petitioner maintained in the State Bank of India, Matwari Branch, Hazaribag. It is submitted that the salary account of the petitioner could not have been frozen and, accordingly, the same should be de-freezed.

¶14

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitions have been rejected by the learned Court below without appreciating the facts and circumstances of this case and accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 may be set aside.

¶15

8. Learned counsel has also referred to Sections 102, 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. and it is submitted that these provisions deal with the power of the Police Officers/Court in connection with seizure and release of property seized by them.

¶16

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “ Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik vs. The State of Maharashtra” reported in II (2007) BC 337. By referring to the

¶17

¶18

said judgment, he submits that under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to release the salary account of the accused.

¶19

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- A.C.B., on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that so far as the first petition regarding the release of Rs. 31,50,040/- is concerned, the same was seized from the house of the petitioner and the petitioner had filed the petition so that he could deposit the amount with the Range Officer, Bagodar, but neither the petitioner gave the details of the labourers to whom the amount was to be paid nor any such petition was filed by the Range Officer, Bagodar. He further submits that if the money belongs to the government it is for the government to take steps for release of the money and the same cannot be released to the petitioner for the purposes of depositing it in the account even if, the account belonges to the government.

¶20

11. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the petitioner is trying to link this money with payment to the labourers, but the petitioner was not authorized to keep the money of labourers in his house. He submits that accordingly it cannot be said that this amount was the same which was to be paid to the labourers. He further submits that no details, no books of account etc., have been furnished by the petitioner to substantiate his claim regarding the amount belonging to the Forest Department.

¶21

12. So far as the salary account is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that a supplementary investigation is going on against the wife of the petitioner and the salary account is also a subject matter of the investigation.

¶22

13. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which has been relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that

¶23

¶24

in the said case the investigation was complete and accordingly the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶25

14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petition which was filed by the petitioner for release of the amount of Rs.31,50,040/- which was seized from his house and which is claimed by the petitioner for the purposes of depositing the same in the account of Range Officer, Bagodar is concerned, the said petition has been rightly rejected by the learned Court below by a well-reasoned order. Learned court below has clearly mentioned that the petitioner did not give any supporting documents in support of his plea. There was no documents placed before the learned Court below to show that the petitioner was authorized to keep the government money in the house of his wife, that too without informing the Superior Officer of the department. Admittedly the government has not filed any petition claiming the said amount.

¶26

15. So far as the petition for de-freezing the salary account of the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that even the same has been rightly rejected by the learned Court below by a wellreasoned order as the account has been mentioned to be the subject matter of investigation, which is still going on. It has also been held by the learned Court below that when the supplementary investigation is under progress, de-freezing of the account would adversely affect the investigation. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that the said account of the petitioner indicated that there has been nil withdrawal made from the same and this was also the subject matter of investigation. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below.

¶27

¶28

16. Apparently no amount was ever withdrawn by the petitioner from this account and it also appears that cognizance was taken in the case against the petitioner on 02.06.2017 and I.O. kept the investigation pending against rest of the accused and records were split up against the accused as Vigilance Case No. 52(A) of 2016.

¶29

17. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Supra) is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstance of this case. In the said case the investigation was over and the said case was dealing with the procedure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. In the present case supplementary investigation is going on and accordingly, the judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court ( Supra ) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

18. Accordingly, the present petition is rejected. It is expected that the opposite party shall make all endeavour to complete the said supplementary investigation at the earliest.

¶31

19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶32

20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶33

21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX”.

¶34

Pappu/Raja

Digambar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through a C B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through a C B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Mohan Pandey Vs the Union of India through CBI

Rameshwar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Jitendra Meena Vs the State through C B I

Satyabrat Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through Its Central Bureau of Investigation Economic Offences Wing

Bal Krishna Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary And Ors.