Jharkhand High Court
Mathura Prasad Shaw vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 17 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1383 of 2017
------
Mathura Prasad Shaw ...... ..... Petitioner
Vrs.
1. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance, Ranchi
2. A.T Ansari, Electric Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Ranchi, JUVNL, Ranchi .... ....Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Petitioner :- M/s. Rahul Kumar & Apoorva Singh, Advocate
For ACB :- Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP
22/17.02.2023
Heard the parties.
2. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the part of the order dated
23.8.2017 in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 1999, corresponding to Special Case No. 7
of 1999 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi whereby his discharge application
has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of the time
petitioner was Electrical Executive Engineer and has got nothing to do with the entire
occurrence. It is his case that the preparing of bills, sanctioning of load, signing of
agreement and conducting inspection were the duty and responsibility of the General
Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Bihar & Chhotanagpur Area Electricity
Department, thus this petitioner who was the Executive Engineer has got no role in the
entire transaction. He submits that even during investigation no material was collected
against the petitioner either to suggest direct involvement in the offence or any
connivance with any other accused. As per him, he had no connection with a 33KVA
consumer, as his field of operation was limited to 11KVA consumer only. On this
ground he submits that petitioner should be discharged.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Bureau submits that there is
allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused connived and
helped commission of theft of electricity in which one M/s. Spriha Steel Private Ltd. is
involved. As per her the grounds which the petitioner has taken is by way of his defence
and same has to be proved by leading cogent evidence in trial. Whether petitioner had
any concern with 33KVA consumer or not is a question of fact which can only be
decided during trial and not at this stage.
5. An FIR was lodged under Section 120B, 201, 353, 379, 467, 468, 471 & 420 of
IPC, Section 39/44 Indian Electricity Act & U/s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
There is an allegation that one M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd was consuming enhanced
load of electricity by unlawful means. This consumption of excess load was not only
illegal, but a theft also. It is alleged this petitioner and several others including the
officials of the said company and employees of Electricity Department, were involved
in this occurrence, thus they are proceeded against.
6. The Investigating Officer investigated the charges and thereafter charge-sheet
was filed against the Company, the Managing Directors, the petitioner and other
officials of the Electricity Board. Before the trial court a petition for discharge was filed
by the petitioner. Discharge petition was considered and was dismissed. The trial court
held that petitioner tried to shift his liability upon others and claimed himself to be
innocent. As per the trial court no case of discharge is made out as the allegation and
the defence version needs to be tested in trial.
7. After hearing the parties and going through the records, especially the impugned
order dated 23.08.2017, I find that that the trial court has taken a correct view. The
defence of the petitioner cannot be looked at this stage when the defence involves a
question of fact. It has to be proved whether the petitioner had any involvement in the
occurrence and whether as per his service obligation and duties, he can at all be said to
be involved with the consumers having load of more than 33KVA or upto 11KVA. The
jurisdiction of this petitioner also needs to be seen as per the work allotted to each of
the officers. This can only be appreciated during trial and not at this stage. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. & Anr.
V. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 in paragraph no.
37 has held as follows:-
"37. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing
charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order.
Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the
label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C or
Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is
to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure
expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any
manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order
of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to
correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the
matter........."
8. Considering the aforesaid judgment and what has been held above, this Court is
of the opinion that to appreciate the defence of the petitioner, evidence has to be led.
Disputed question of fact cannot be looked into at this stage. Thus, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order dated 23.8.2017 passed in Special Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 30 of 1999.
9. According, the instant application stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/
