Dismissed

Dr. Harihar Prasad v. Union of India Thru.Cbi

Patna HC1 Aug 2012CR. MISC./18687/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking quashing of an order rejecting a discharge petition. The court held that a CBI Inspector has investigation authority under Section 17(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and found sufficient material for framing charges.

What did the court decide?

Application filed for quashing the order rejecting discharge petition is dismissed.

Dr. Harihar Prasad Vs Union of India Thru.Cbi — Corruption | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18687 of 2011 (2) dt.01-08-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18687 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Dr. Harihar Prasad S/O Late Lohar Sahu R/O Vill.- Chandwey, P.O.Pithoria, Distt- Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Thruough The C.B.I. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Hussamuddin Azad, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, S.C., C.B.I. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 01-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶3

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.4.2011 passed in Special Case No.10 of 2009, arising out of ACB/CBI/PATNA F.I.R. No. RC 0232009 A 0018 by the Special Judge, CBI (North), Patna by which the court below has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised number of legal points that copy of the case diary has not been given to the petitioner and only transcript copy of some of the witnesses have been given. There was no recovery of money from the possession of the petitioner and

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18687 of 2011 (2) dt.01-08-2012

¶6

no finger print of petitioner on money. He further submits that exhibits which were required for defence have not been filed before the court nor the exhibits have been sent by the court for its examination though the F.S.L. has been brought on record of the case. He further submits that investigation has been done by the Inspector who is not competent under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act the Dy.S.P. has jurisdiction to make investigation and only in special circumstance notified by the State Government or Central Government, Inspector will have jurisdiction to make investigation. He further submits that sanction has been granted by the incompetent authority that too without application of mind as he has not considered the whole documents. Further submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the person who has made the complaint has enmity with the petitioner and it is completely a malicious prosecution. The last but not the least submission is that the prosecution is bad due to nonavailability of essential documents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation has refuted the arguments advanced by

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18687 of 2011 (2) dt.01-08-2012

¶9

learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the application that has been made by the complainant itself shows that there was demand of money whereafter verification was made and from the pre-trap, recovery memo and post trap, it is clear that there was demand of money from the complainant, allegation of malice will not have play in the event when he was trapped.

¶10

So far power and jurisdiction of the Inspector is concerned, counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted that under section 17(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in cases of C.B.I. the Inspector is authorized to make investigation. He further submits that so far point of sanction is concerned, he can raise the point of sanction before the court below at the trial stage. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in of 2007 (1) SCC 1. He has further submitted that on consideration of Annexures 4 and 5, it appears that the C.B.I. has given reply of Annexure 4 by Annexure 5 where it has been pointed out that in paragraph nos. 1, 2 and 4 shows that the C.B.I. has served copy of relevant documents including the statement recorded under section

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18687 of 2011 (2) dt.01-08-2012

¶12

161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to other documents C.B.I. has given its explanation and has fully replied to the application made by the petitioner in Annexure-4.

¶13

Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it is clear that as per Section 17(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in cases of C.B.I., the Inspector has authority to make investigation. So far sanction is concerned, it will be seen during trial. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points before the court below at the time of trial. So far materials are concerned, the court below has come to a conclusion that there are sufficient materials for framing of charge and material documents filed by C.B.I. has been supplied.

¶14

At this stage this Court does not give any finding about the merit of the case which may prejudice either party will be seen at the time of trial. This Court does not find any merit in this application.

¶15

Accordingly this application is dismissed.

¶16

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶17

Vinay/-

Dr. Harihar Prasad v. Union of India Thru.Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Harihar Prasad v. Union of India Thru.Cbi

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

Gharghushan Kumar @ Gharghushan Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shambhu Mistri and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Binadanand Yadav @ Bipin Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Lakshman Mishra @ Laxman Mishra and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Dr. Harihar Prasad Vs the Union of India through the

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Sanjiv Sharan Chairman Madhya