Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Manju Kumari Wife Of Shashi ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Acb on 6 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 391 of 2019
----
Smt. Manju Kumari wife of Shashi Bhushan Prasad, resident of New
Sahdeo Nagar, Post Office Hehal, Police Station Sukhdeonagar (O.P.
Pandra), District Ranchi.
... ... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand through ACB ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nikki Sinha, Spl. P.P.
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 06.12.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 6.12.2022
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision application
against the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB,
Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.236 of 2019 in connection with
Vigilance Special Case No.18/2011 arising out of Vigilance Police Station
Case No.16 of 2011, by which petition filed under Section 216 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking alteration of charges framed on 09.01.2018 under
Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected and further a cost of Rs.3,000/- has
been imposed upon the petitioner to be paid within one month from the date of
the order in the Government head.
2. As per the written report, the prosecution case is that in course of
raid from the house of the petitioner, cash amount of Rs.3,86,250/-, Kisan
Vikas Patras, Fixed Deposits in various Banks, LIC Policies, Bank Pass Books
of various banks, various cheques, cheque books, Gold and Silver Jewelleries
in huge quantity were recovered. Further, it is mentioned that the petitioner
has received a sum of Rs.9,22,510/- as salary from August 2001 to September
2004 and July 2007 to August 2010 and if the salary for the entire service
period of the petitioner is calculated, the same would come to not more than
Rs.20 lakh and if this amount of salary is deducted from the value of seized
assets and investments, still assets and investments worth Rs.19,01,032/- is
disproportionate to known sources of income. It has further been mentioned
that if the value of the huge and luxurious two storied building is added, then
the aforesaid amount would rise to huge extent. On this basis Vigilance Police
Station Case No.16 of 2011 was instituted against the petitioner for offences
under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
3. After investigation chargesheet No.50/2014 dated 31.12.2014 was
submitted in this case, wherein petitioner has been shown to possess assets
disproportionate to the extent of Rs.42,03,316/-.
4. Considering the chargesheet, the Court below framed charge
against the accused for having disproportionate assets to the tune of
Rs.42,03,316/-, though the sanction granted was only for possessing
disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,43,102/-. The petitioner, thereafter,
filed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
praying for alteration of charge, which was dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/-,
hence, this petition.
5. Case of the petitioner is that though the chargesheet has been
submitted against the petitioner for having assets disproportionate to the
extent of Rs.42,03,316/-, but sanction for prosecution against the petitioner
was granted only for Rs.1,43,102/-. It is their further case that ignoring all the
provisions of law, investigating officer has filed a chargesheet before the
learned Court below, showing the value of disproportionate assets to be
Rs.42,03,316/-. It is their case that if the original figure is taken into
consideration, then, the amount would be less than 10% and thus, will not
come within the purview of criminal case. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior
counsel submitted that the building including the land was not properly valued.
Some period of construction was beyond the check period, which could not
have been considered by the Court concerned. Further, some income has
been recorded in the Income Tax Return, but the same was not considered as
the income of the petitioner. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel further
submitted that income of the husband has also been added with the income of
this petitioner, when, admittedly, the income of both were separate and could
not have been clubbed for coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has
amassed assets, which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. He
relies upon an order passed in B.A. No.4223 of 2013, wherein, this petitioner
was released on bail by this Court. He submits that the High Court has
considered and concluded that the disproportionate assets is only to the tune
of Rs.1,43,102/-, which was not taken note of by the learned Court while
passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2019. Learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relies upon the
following judgments:-
1) Girraj Prasad Meena versus State of Rajasthan
& Others [(2014) 13 SCC 674]
2) Jasvinder Saini & Others versus State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 7 SCC
256]
3) Abdul Sayeed versus State of Madhya Pradesh
[(2010) 10 SCC 259]
4) Naresh Giri versus State of M.P.[(2008) 1 SCC
791]
5) Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi versus State of
Gujarat & Others [(2004) 5 SCC 347]
6) Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy versus State
of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in [(2020)
12 SCC 467]
6. Learned Special P.P. appearing for the State submits that the
issue, which the petitioners have raised, is a factual aspect, which can be
better appreciated after the evidence is led. She submits that the
disproportionate assets is to the tune of Rs.42,03,316/-, thus, the Trial Court
has rightly framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per her,
mentioning of Rs.1,43,102/- as the amount of disproportionate assets is not of
material importance when the undisputed fact is that authority has sanctioned
the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner for amassing assets, which
disproportionate to her known sources of come.
7. After hearing the parties, I find that the main ground taken by the
petitioner is that sanction to prosecute was accorded wherein it was mentioned
that the disproportionate assets is to the tune of Rs.1,43,102/-, but the
chargesheet was submitted showing the disproportionate assets to be of
Rs.42,03,316/-. The petitioner's case is that the original amount of
Rs.1,43,102/- is within 10% of the limit of deviation, thus, he could not have
been prosecuted at all. At this stage, this Court cannot conclude as to what
would be the correct value of disproportionate assets. The fact remains that
the competent authority accorded sanction to prosecute this petitioner for
amassing disproportionate assets beyond the known sources of income. What
would have the valuation of the assets and what are the materials, are
question of fact and subject matter of evidence during trial, which cannot be
entered at this stage, wherein the application of the petitioner for altering the
charge was dismissed. The ground for altering the charge taken by the
petitioner is only based on her statement that the valuation of disproportionate
assets is not Rs.42,03,316/- and can be Rs.1,43,102/-. This cannot be a
ground to interfere with the impugned order. Be it noted that this petitioner was
trapped by the Vigilance Bureau and from her house cash of Rs.3,86,250/-
was also recovered; further huge documents, i.e., Fixed Deposit Receipts, LIC
Policies etc. were recovered. Apart from the aforesaid, Vigilance Case No.47
of 2010, after verification and inquiry, disproportionate assets beyond the
known sources of income, was found, which resulted in Vigilance Police
Station Case No.16 of 2011 (instant case). Chargesheet was submitted
showing that the valuation of the said assets which is disproportionate to the
known sources of income is Rs.42,03,316/-. Thus, charge was framed against
the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied
upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have gone through
the said judgments. On the facts of this case, this Court feels that the
judgments sought to be relied upon by the petitioner cannot help this petitioner
as prayer for alteration of charge is only on some valuation. As held earlier, the
question of valuation of property cannot be gone into at the stage of revision.
9. Petitioner sought alteration of the charge on the ground
mentioned aforesaid. The grounds for alteration of the charge is without any
substance and is absolutely based on facts and calculations, which cannot be
subject matter of this revision application. Thus, I find no ground to interfere
with the aforesaid prayer.
10. So far as imposition of cost is concerned, I find that after
dismissing the petition seeking alteration of charge, the Trial Court has
imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/-. I find that no reasons have been mentioned as
to why cost has been imposed. Petitioner had filed an application seeking
alteration of charge, as the petitioner thought that the same is the best remedy
for her. Special Judge did not find any ground to interfere with the same and
thus, dismissed the same. The said dismissal was well within the jurisdiction of
the learned Special Judge, but what prompted to impose a cost of Rs.3,000/-
is not reflected in the ordersheet. Without any reason, this cost has been
imposed upon the petitioner, who approached the Court seeking a remedy,
which, according to her, was best. Since there is no reason and there is no
justification to impose a cost, I set aside only that part of the order by which
cost of Rs.3,000/- has been imposed.
11. This revision application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
