Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar & Anr vs The Union Of India Through ... on 14 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 139 of 2019
......
Rajesh Kumar & Anr. ...... Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I./A.C.B. ......Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
.......
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
-----
10/Dated: 14/08/2023.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2018 arising out of RC-
10(A)/2015 (R) by C.B.I./ACB dated 30.09.2015 for offence alleged under
Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the
court of learned Special Judge C.B.I., Ranchi.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that subsequently the charge has been framed, which has been challenged by
of the I.A. and said I.A. is allowed, accordingly, the order of framing charge
is also under challenge.
4. The case was registered alleging therein that on the statement of S.K.
Khare, S.P./HOB, CBI, ACB Ranchi, who stated that upon received
information against Rajesh Kumar who is posted as Executive Engineer in
CPWD at Ranchi acquired pecuniary resources and property
disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of
Rs.1,36,26,870/- during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014. It was further
alleged that during the period of 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014 Rajesh Kumar has
acquired movable and immovable assets worth of Rs.1,73,39,205/- in his
own name and that on his family members. On such act the FIR was lodged.
5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the charge sheet has been submitted, however, the CBI has not inspected
on the point that the petitioner No.2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1 and
allegations are against the petitioner No.1, who is Executive Engineer,
CPWD (Central Public Works Department). He submits that unnecessarily
petitioner No.2 has been implicated in this case. He also submits that order
framing charge is bad in law, this Court may quashed the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the
C.B.I. submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife
respectively and case was found of acquiring property of disproportionate
assets to the tune of Rs.92,73,838/-. He submits that CBI has enquired each
and every bank details of the petitioners and thereafter a chargesheet has
been submitted against them.
7. He draws the attention of this Court to chargesheet particularly the
statement with regard to the bank account investigated by the CBI. By
preferring the chargesheet, Mr. Anil Kumar learned A.S.G.I. further submits
that check period was found in the possession of the assets in individual
capacity of the petitioner No.2 and she has not been able to explain how the
said property has been acquired.
8. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the parties, the
Court has gone to the contents of the chargesheet as well as impugned order
passed by the learned court. In the chargesheet it has come that the
petitioners have acquired the property disproportionate to the tune of
Rs.92,73,838/- onwards. Further petitioner No.2 has not been able to explain
as to how she has acquired the said property.
9. The learned court rejecting the petition of discharge has considered
this aspect of the matter at length and elaborately discussed, the allegation
found by the CBI against these petitioners. Learned court has found that the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 income was Rs.1,21,52,323/- and expenditure
incurred was Rs.84,39,997/- and they acquired immovable and movable
assets to the tune of Rs.1,73,39,205/- being in his own name and in the name
of his family members including petitioner No.2, who is the wife of the
petitioner No.1.
10. It appears that there are materials for framing of the charge. The Court
finds that order framing charge is also not bad in law as for framing of the
charge the clarity of charge is required to be explained to the accused and
which have been done correctly by the learned concerned court.
11. It is well settled that at the time of considering the discharge petition
the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Aryan Singh, reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379.
12. There are several judgments on this point, which speaks that roaming
enquiry at this stage is not required for discharge of the accused.
13. In view of the above facts, this Court finds that there is no illegality in
the order taking cognizance as well as further order of rejecting the
discharge petition as well as framing of the charge.
14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
15. I.A. No.10857 of 2019 is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
R.S-
