Udai Narain Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1551 Jhar

                                        1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No. 2145 of 2013

Udai Narain Thakur, son of late Chottak Thakur, resident of Flat No. 302, Sai Harmony
Apartment, New Patriliputra Colony P.O. and P.S. Patliputra, District Patna, permanent
resident of village Gangauli, P.O. and P.S. Simri, District Buxar, Bihar
                                                               ...... Petitioner
                           Versus

The State of Jharkhand                                            ......    Opp. Party

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                       ---------

For the Petitioner     : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                         Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
                        Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate

For the State               : Mr. Fahad Alam, A.P.P.

06/Dated: 11/04/2023

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal

proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 25.10.2010 passed in

connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 99

of 2000, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

3. Status report is on record which suggests that case of the co-

accused has been split up and one of the accused has faced trial and he has

been convicted for that he preferred appeal which is still pending and so far as

this petitioner is concerned, the case is pending.

4. By order dated 22.10.2013 interim protection was granted to the

petitioner.

5. F.I.R. has been registered by the informant Madan Sen Gupta,

Meso Project Officer alleging therein that

(a) by a government order no. 152 dated 21.04.1997, Rs. 79,26,400

was given to the Meso Area, Lathear, out of which Rs. 35 lakshs

were given for training the tribals in handloom saree making;

(b). Vide letter no. 340 dated 15.05.1997 the District Welfare Officer

sent his proposal for the scheme to the Tribal Welfare Commissioner;

(c) by letter no. 101 dated 29.01.1998 the Tribal Welfare

Commissioner granted permission for entrusing the job of giving

training to the Institution proposed by the District Welfare Officer:

(d) thereupon the Meso Project Officer, Latehar-Shri Uday Narayan

Thakur (petitioner) in the wake of the letter no. 101 dated

21.09.1998 of the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, handed over the job

of implementing the scheme to M/s Hindustan Carpet Industries

which is run by one Shri Abdul Rehman Warsi:

(e) Upon request of Shri Abdul Rehman Warsi the petitioner paid Rs.

24,18,400/- at a time on 06.03.1998;

(f) the following irregularities were committed in the scheme:

(1). The District Welfare Officer failed to himself verify the list of

tribals available in the office and prepared and forwarded the

scheme without verification and Deputy Commissioners' consent.

(2). Mr. Warsi deleted names of 50 persons who were not available

in the village for training out of 350 persons, and himself selected

50 others, upon which the Meso Officer (petitioner) granted approval

without verification or obtaining approval of the higher officials.

3). some minors were added in the list from which it is inferred that

Shri Warsi and the Meso Officer added wrong persons by conniving

with each other and misappropriated Government money by

showing payment in the name of training,

4). the attendance register of trainees contains wrong entries made

by Shri Warsi as it has been found by the Commissioner that the

number of trainees is less and payment of Stipend has been wrongly

shown to have been made fully,

5). Shri. Abdul Rehman Warsi demanded Rs.28,73,000 at a time on

the day of agreement dated 05.03.1998 and the Project Officer paid

Rs. 24,18,000/- without verifying the scheme or trainees ; and the

entire thing was done in such haste that even the signature of

witnesses were not taken in the agreement. The intention of Shri.

Abdul Rehman Warsi was not good as would appear from the fact

that he gave information about start of the project on 01.04.1998

and on 04.04.1998 itself he demanded the amount. Thus the Meso

Officer also has his hand in misappropriation of Government money.

(g) the Divisional Commissioner- Shri P.K. Patnaik made enquiry on

28.08.1998 and reported about less payment of stipend, outsiders

shown as trainees and absence of some of the trainees named. The

attendance was also found short;

(h) Shri. Abdul Rehman Warsi procured raw materials before hand

and claimed to have paid advance to one Sarwar Ansari and another

Shri Vikash Kumar Sinha which were supported by bill/receipt

(alleged to be fabricated as the payment was disbelieved);

(i) enquiry report of the Assistant Engineer, Meso regarding the

storage of articles showed that Shri. Warsi did not co-operate in

enquiry from which it appears that he did procured the materials and

misappropriated the money.

Accordingly the accused named in the FIR were (1) Shri. Abdul

Rehman Warsi, owner of M/s Hindustan Carpet Industries (11) Shri

Uday Narayan Thakur, Meso Officer, (iii) Vikash Kumar Sinha and (iv)

Sarwar Ansari, along with the FIR the above referred documents,

namely the letters and reports were enclosed, vis

• Government Order No.125 dated 24.12.1997

• Letter of the Tribal Welfare Commissioner dated 29.01.1998.

• Meso Officers order letter.

. Agreement of Shri. Waris/.

. Money receipt of Shri Warsi.

• Letter of Shri Warsi dated 04.04.1998.

• Enquiry Report of the Commissioner.

• Enquiry Report of the Assistant Engineer, Meso.

• Letter of Regional Development Commissioner, no.

483, dated 31.10.1998.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was posted as Meso Officer (Micro Economic Social Organization

and allegation against him is that there was no proper supervision by the

petitioner and a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs and odd was misappropriated. He submits

that by resolution dated 06.09.1999 issued by the Administrative Reforms,

Government of Bihar a departmental proceeding was set up against the

petitioner for the same set of charge. In the said departmental enquiry

Divisional Commissioner, Palamu Division was appointed as Enquiry Officer who

submitted enquiry report stating that it became apparent that the petitioner's

implication was false and malafide. On 06.06.2001 enquiry report in

departmental proceeding was submitted by the Divisional Commissioner,

Palamau finding the petitioner innocent in respect of all the charges including

those which are subject matter in the criminal proceeding. In the departmental

proceeding Divisional Commissioner has observed as under:-

" The charges as shown in both the FORMS smacks of malafide and I am

afraid the proceedee cannot be charged against any of the allegation against

him. Accordingly, I am inclined to hold that the charges against the then MESO

Officer are not proved and as such the proceedee is entitled to be exonerated."

7. He further submits that in view of enquiry report the petitioner

is innocent however in the criminal case learned court has taken cognizance.

He further submits that the enquiry report was accepted by the Government

and by Resolution dated 29.11.2005 Annexure-6 and the entire benefits have

been directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that

for the same set of charge, criminal case has also been filed however in the

departmental proceeding the petitioner has been exonerated that has been

accepted by the Government. He further submits that if 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 interfered by this Court. To buttress his argument,

he relied in the case of " Ashoo Surendranath Tewari V. C.B.I. (2020) 9

SCC 636 and relied on paragraph nos. 12 to 15 of the said judgment which is

quoted here-in-below:-

"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."

8. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to

allow the proceeding to continue so far as this petitioner is concerned, will

amount the abuse of process of the Court.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Fahad Alam, learned counsel for the State

submits that there is allegation of misappropriation of government money that is

why criminal case has been lodged. He submits that if the charges on technical

ground is exonerated in the departmental proceeding that is not a ground for

quashing of entire criminal proceeding however he accepts that if charges are

same in departmental proceeding as well as in criminal proceeding and if the

Court comes to the conclusion that charges are same, the Court may pass

appropriate order in accordance with law.

10. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the

Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly for not

supervising appropriately the said F.I.R. has been lodged. For the same set of

charge departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner which

was enquired by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division who submitted

enquiry report wherein it has been stated that the allegation is false and malafide

against the petitioner. He has also opined that if the petitioner is guilty, the

Deputy Commissioner of the district is not above board, however, he has

observed which has been quoted here-in-above. The said report has been

accepted by the Government vide Annexure-6 and entire benefit has been

released in favour of the petitioner. The Court finds that enquiry officer has not

exonerated the petitioner on technical ground. It is well settled the yardstick

would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as

well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical or not. Looking into the F.I.R.

as well as departmental proceeding, it appears that for the same set of charge,

departmental proceeding was also initiated in which petitioner has been

exonerated by the enquiry officer and the said report has been accepted by the

Government.

11. In view of above facts, it appears that the case of the petitioner is

fully covered with Ashoo Surendranath Tewari(supra).

12. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 25.10.2010 passed in

connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 99 of

2000, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, so far as

this petitioner is concerned, is quashed and set aside.

13. It is made clear that the criminal proceeding with regard to rest of

the accused is kept intact.

14. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, stands

disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/