Allowed

Arun Kumar Roy v. State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2013CR. MISC./49181/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed the petitioner's application to quash criminal proceedings initiated for a 1976-77 corruption allegation regarding electricity cables. The court held that though delay is not a ground for quashment, the 22-year gap in filing the FIR meant no evidence could surface for the subsequent 37-year period, making the trial meaningless.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding including the order dated 9.9.2008 by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, in Special Case No. 22 of 1999 is quashed.

Arun Kumar Roy Vs State of Bihar — Corruption | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49181 of 2008

¶2

====================================================== Arun Kumar Roy, son of late Jitendra Nath Roy, resident of Kamdhenu Hotel, Mohalla Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, Distt. Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurang Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Chatterjee, Adv. For the Vigilance : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Babita Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 15 01-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

¶3

The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance 1^st , Patna, in Special Case No. 22 of 1999 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 1999 by which he has rejected the prayer for discharge.

¶4

The case of the prosecution is that in the year 1976-77, some cables of electricity department had been auction sold which was much below the market rate. When an enquiry was set up to go into the matter, the concerned file went missing.

¶5

It appears that there are two-fold allegations in

¶6

the First Information Report. First, that the cables had been

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49181 of 2008 (15) dt.01-07-2013 2/3

¶8

auction sold at a very low price. And second that some persons had caused disappearance of the file concerned to stall the enquiry.

¶9

Whereas the first question is concerned, it appears that the decision to sell the cables through auction was taken by the then Chief Engineer who is no more and the Petitioner had no concern with it. Whereas the persons who were allegedly responsible for making the files traceless, were the Technical Secretary, Member Bihar Electricity Board and the present Petitioner who happened to be the Private Secretary to the Member, Accounts.

¶10

The submission of the Petitioner is that even if accepting that the file had been got misplaced but fact of the matter is that it was reconstructed. And at best it would be an administrative lapse. To proceed criminally against the accused would be against the interest of justice.

¶11

Further submission is that even though the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1976-77, the First Information Report was instituted 22 years later i.e. on 18.8.99 and much after the retirement of all the accused persons, some of whom are now dead.

¶12

On the other hand, the counsel for the Vigilance submits that the case is based on documentary evidence and, since

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49181 of 2008 (15) dt.01-07-2013 3/3

¶14

the accused persons having allegedly caused a loss of around four lacs rupees, they should be prosecuted.

¶15

Even while being aware that delay is no ground for quashment of proceedings but having gone through allegations the First Information Report, I am of the view that putting the Accused on Trial in the present case would be meaningless. For the reason that the First Information Report instituted after 22 years of the alleged occurrence would remain unsubstantiated since after more than 37 years, there is no likelihood of any evidence forthcoming to support the nature of allegations.

¶16

In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, 1^st , Patna, in Special Case No. 22 of 1999 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 1999 is hereby quashed.

¶17

(Anjana Prakash, J)

¶18

S.Ali

Arun Kumar Roy v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Roy v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Tiwary and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Vs State of Bihar

Shambhu Nath Jha Vs State of Bihar

Shambhu Sharan Srivastava Vs State of Bihar

Maxy Francis D'Costa @ F.D'Costa Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Most.Samundri Devi and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.