Mukesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3933 Jhar

                                           1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1286 of 2017

----

Mukesh Kumar Sinha, s/o late Sharda Nandan Prasad, resident of Nawatoli, PO and PS Daltongunj, District-Palamau ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate

----

9/21.10.2021 Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.10.2016 including the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Koderma P.S.Case No.169 of 2015, corresponding to G.R.No.1018 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

"The F.I.R was lodged alleging therein that, the prosecution case arises out of a written report contained in letter No.886 dated 21.09.2015 of Sri Prabhat Kumar Bardiyar, the Sub Divisional Officer, Koderma, addressed to the Officer - in-Charge, Koderma PS on the subject of irregularities committed in distribution of seeds received from the Agriculture Department of Koderma District.

That the prosecution case in brief as appearing from the written report is that 1000 quintals of seeds was provided to the District Agriculture Officer, Koderma cum Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Koderma. The said seeds were made available to Sri Mohan Sao, the President, Domchanch North PACSS Ltd., for distribution but the said PACCS did not have the required number of farmers or irrigated lands. It is further alleged that Sri Mohan Sao prepared a Seed Distribution Register and entered the name of such persons who even did not received the seeds. The said register containing the said entries were verified by the Pramukh, Block Agriculture Officer

and Block Cooperative Extension Office of Domchanch. It has also been alleged that the District Agriculture Officer, Koderma made an attempt to withdraw the amount from the Treasury by production of bill. Lastly it has been averred that Sri Santosh Lakra, District Cum Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Koderma, Sri Mohan Sao , President, Domchanch North PACSS Ltd., Sri Adaresh Kumar Pankaj, Deputy Pramukh, Domchanch and Sri Babulal Prasad, Block Agriculture Officer, Domchanch have not performed their duties properly and as such necessary action be taken against the named accused persons. The said written report was received in Koderma P.S. on 21.09.2015 and the said police Station registered the same as Koderma P.S. Case No.169/2015."

3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Resident Block Cooperative Extension Officer in Domchanch, District of Koderma. In the FIR it has been alleged that the petitioner certified the list of persons who have been provided the benefit by the said Cooperative Bank. According to him, for the same set of charge, departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. In enquiry report dated 10.05.2016 the petitioner was not found guilty. In the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was exonerated by order dated 30.08.2017 contained at Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He submits that it is well settled that for the same set of charge, criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding have been initiated and in the departmental proceeding there was exoneration, the entire criminal proceeding is required to be quashed. He relied in the case of "Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another", (2020) 9 SCC 636. Paragraph nos.12 to 15 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case, SCC p. 598) "38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are

independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases."

13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case, SCC p. 598, para 39) "39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court."

14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.

15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22-12-2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

4. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that this development has taken place later on after filing of the chargesheet.

5. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the enquiry report it transpires that the guilt against the petitioner was not found true. In the appeal the petitioner was exonerated. For the same set of charges the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding have been initiated against the petitioner. The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the

criminal case is higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceeding. In the situation the charge in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding is one and the same.

7. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another" (supra), this is fit case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 03.10.2016 including the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Koderma P.S.Case No.169 of 2015, corresponding to G.R.No.1018 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, so far the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.

9. Cr.M.P.No.1286 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/