Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India through C B I Acb

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./139/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of cognizance and framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upholding the lower court's order, the Court observed that the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial during discharge proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing the order of framing charge and cognizance was dismissed.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India through C B I Acb — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 139 of 2019

¶3

…...

¶4

Rajesh Kumar & Anr. …… Petitioners Versus The Union of India through C.B.I./A.C.B. ……Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶6

For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. -----

¶7

10/Dated: 14/08/2023.

¶8

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2018 arising out of RC10(A)/2015 (R) by C.B.I./ACB dated 30.09.2015 for offence alleged under Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the court of learned Special Judge C.B.I., Ranchi.

¶10

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently the charge has been framed, which has been challenged by of the I.A. and said I.A. is allowed, accordingly, the order of framing charge is also under challenge.

¶11

The case was registered alleging therein that on the statement of S.K. Khare, S.P./HOB, CBI, ACB Ranchi, who stated that upon received information against Rajesh Kumar who is posted as Executive Engineer in CPWD at Ranchi acquired pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.1,36,26,870/- during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014. It was further alleged that during the period of 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014 Rajesh Kumar has acquired movable and immovable assets worth of Rs.1,73,39,205/- in his own name and that on his family members. On such act the FIR was lodged.

¶12

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet has been submitted, however, the CBI has not inspected on the point that the petitioner No.2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1 and allegations are against the petitioner No.1, who is Executive Engineer, CPWD (Central Public Works Department). He submits that unnecessarily petitioner No.2 has been implicated in this case. He also submits that order

¶13

-2-

¶14

framing charge is bad in law, this Court may quashed the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the C.B.I. submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife respectively and case was found of acquiring property of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.92,73,838/-. He submits that CBI has enquired each and every bank details of the petitioners and thereafter a chargesheet has been submitted against them.

¶16

He draws the attention of this Court to chargesheet particularly the statement with regard to the bank account investigated by the CBI. By preferring the chargesheet, Mr. Anil Kumar learned A.S.G.I. further submits that check period was found in the possession of the assets in individual capacity of the petitioner No.2 and she has not been able to explain how the said property has been acquired.

¶17

In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone to the contents of the chargesheet as well as impugned order passed by the learned court. In the chargesheet it has come that the petitioners have acquired the property disproportionate to the tune of Rs.92,73,838/- onwards. Further petitioner No.2 has not been able to explain as to how she has acquired the said property.

¶18

The learned court rejecting the petition of discharge has considered this aspect of the matter at length and elaborately discussed, the allegation found by the CBI against these petitioners. Learned court has found that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 income was Rs.1,21,52,323/- and expenditure incurred was Rs.84,39,997/- and they acquired immovable and movable assets to the tune of Rs.1,73,39,205/- being in his own name and in the name of his family members including petitioner No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner No.1.

¶19

It appears that there are materials for framing of the charge. The Court finds that order framing charge is also not bad in law as for framing of the charge the clarity of charge is required to be explained to the accused and which have been done correctly by the learned concerned court.

¶20

-3-

¶21

It is well settled that at the time of considering the discharge petition the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379.

¶22

There are several judgments on this point, which speaks that roaming enquiry at this stage is not required for discharge of the accused.

¶23

In view of the above facts, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance as well as further order of rejecting the discharge petition as well as framing of the charge.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

I.A. No.10857 of 2019 is disposed of.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

R.S-

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India through C B I Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India through C B I Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanika Bansal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mansa Ram Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

M/S P.D.Agarwal Vs S.A.I.L.

P.D.Agarwal Vs Sail

Pradeep Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand