Jharkhand High Court
Shiva Shankar Verma @ S.S. Verma vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 26 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No. 612 of 2013
Shiva Shankar Verma @ S.S. Verma .... .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... .... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
FOR THE STATE : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
------
21/26.07.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2010 by which the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offence
under Sections 409, 467, 468, 469, 471, 423, 424, 477A, 109, 201, 120B IPC and
Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2000 arising out of Special Case No. 15 of 2000.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that order taking cognizance dated
22.04.2010 is absolutely bad, cryptic and does not comply with the provision of
law. He submits that there is nothing in the impugned order to suggest as to what
is the criminal offence which the petitioner has committed to attract the provision
of Sections 409, 467, 468, 469, 471, 423, 424, 477A, 109, 201, 120B IPC and
Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that
even if the charge-sheet is seen it would be crystal clear that there is nothing to
attract the aforesaid offences. He submit that petitioner was Competent Authority
under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and he has signed the
notification under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act, 1976. He submits that
admittedly from the charge-sheet there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has
obtained any pecuniary gain for himself or for any other person. He submits that
in absence of this basic ingredients no cognizance would have been taken nor the
petitioner could have been summoned in this case. By referring to the judgment
of this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
& Ors, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199, he submits that merely writing " perused" 'heard'
will not stand the tests of reasonableness. He submits that the order is absolutely
unreasonable, cryptic and needs to be quashed. He submits that no sanction was ever
granted in this case.
Mr. Suraj Verma, counsel for the State submits that during investigation several
materials were found against the petitioner thus the court has taken cognizance. He
submits that sanction was also accorded against him.
After going through the impugned order, I find that simply on the ground that
charge-sheet was submitted the court has taken cognizance. What are the materials to
attract the offence under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 have not
been mentioned in the aforesaid order. Further what are the materials to summon the
petitioner has also not been mentioned. When I go through the charge-sheet which is
Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, I also find that so far as this petitioner is
concerned there is nothing to suggest as to what is the nature of pecuniary and other
benefit, the petitioner has received illegally. In a very mechanical manner the charge-
sheet has been submitted.
Considering the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar
Dhiraj (Supra), I find that order impugned is cryptic, unreasonable and needs to be
quashed. Thus I find no hesitation to quash the summon order dated 22.4.2010. The
matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order on the point of summoning
if any material is at all there against the petitioner.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
