Ravi Shankar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2167 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. M.P. No. 2525 of 2016
 Ravi Shankar Pandey                       .... .. ...  Petitioner(s)
                          Versus
 The State of Jharkhand through CBI .. ... ...          Opp. Party(s)
                          ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

 For the Petitioner(s)    :          Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
 For the Vigilance        :          Mrs. P. Shrestha, APP
                            ......
 C.A.V. ON 08.05.2023                      PRONOUNCED ON 16 / 06 / 2023

1. The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.04.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi in Special Case no. 44 of 2013, whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 406, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(C)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

2. The petitioner was District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh (now superannuated from the services).

3. Informant of the case is Dy.S.P Vigilance bureau and the FIR was lodged against (i) Umesh Kumar Yadav, former secretary PACS, village Gondalpur (ii) Gopal Krishna Kunwar the then BDO-cum-CO (iii) Yogendar Poddar Block Co-operative officer (iv) Petitioner Ravi Shankar Pandey District Co-operative officer (v) Umesh Kumar Singh Branch Manager Co-operative Bank.

4. As per the prosecution case, the two main charges are as under:

I. In implementation of agricultural insurance scheme in the year 2009 in the District of Hazaribag. Principal accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav, President of Gondalpura PACS received illegal premium @ Rs.110/- per acre from each farmer in place of actual premium fixed by the Government @Rs.99/- per acre in the Agricultural Insurance Scheme. The name of several farmers was not included in the beneficiaries of the crop insurance scheme, as a result they were deprived of the benefits under the scheme. The principal accused Umesh Kumar Yadav managed to get crop insurance for 51 acres of land by getting the crop insurance registered in the name of his minor children.

II. Election of the secretary to the post of secretary PACS was of pivotal significance because beneficiaries of crop insurance were prepared by the secretary of PACS. This list was verified by the Block co-operative Officer and Block Development Officer . It is alleged that in the election of PACS conducted for village Gondalpura, irregularities were committed in which the father of Umesh Kumar Yadav was elected as secretary. Minor family members of Umesh Kumar Yadav were attempted to be elected in connivance with the named accused persons. His minor son was also nominated in the election to be held on 22.11.2011. Petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, Umesh Kumar Yadav intentionally delayed the election of Gondalpura PACs. election and attempted to elect his minor son as President of the Samiti.

CASE OF PETITIONER

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence is said to be committed in year 2009-10, whereas this petitioner was posted in the said District in pursuance to the notification dated 29.06.2011. It is submitted that all the alleged acts were committed before he took the charge of his office in the District of Hazaribagh. In the year 2009-10, the District Cooperative Officer was Mr. A.G. Kujur. Verification of the beneficiaries was made by his predecessor A.G. Kujur which will be apparent from letter no.83 dated 9.3.2011. From the order dated 11.9.2013 of the Lokayukta passed in Complaint no.01/public cooperative 02/2012 it will be apparent that the list of beneficiaries was made available to the Hazaribag Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vide memo no.2139 dated 9.03.2011. Vide memo no. 1960 dated 10.02.2011, the list of eligible farmers for the crop insurance was ordered. From this it will be evident that process of payment of crop insurance was completed before this petitioner took charge.

6. Allegation against him is confined to the attempted irregularities in election to PACS. The allegation of complicity in the election has been denied. It is submitted that no election did take place due to his effort.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330

"27. Recently, this Court again had an occasion to examine the ambit and scope of Section 482 CrPC in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar [(2008) 14 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 721] wherein in the main order it was observed that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was unlimited. In the said judgment, this Court held that the High Court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a concurring separate order passed in the same case, it was additionally observed that under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court was free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. The aforesaid parameters shall be kept in mind while we examine whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the facts and circumstances of this case."

8. Learned Spl.P.P. for the Vigilance/ ACB has opposed the quashing petition. It is submitted that probative value of the materials on record cannot be scrutinised at this stage. Reliance is placed on Rajiv Thappar case (supra), wherein it has been held:

28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides it will be evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Anti-Corruption Bureau that beneficiaries of the crop insurance scheme were identified, and the payment was released before the petitioner took over the

charge on transfer in the district of Hazaribag, as District Central Co- Operative Officer on 7.7.2011. The matter pertains to crop insurance scheme in which the irregularities were committed in the year 2009. Neither the crop insurance was made during his term nor the list of beneficiaries was finalised.

10. Since the petitioner was not even posted at Hazaribag when the entire transaction of crop insurance from the stage of payment of premium amount, to finalisation of list of beneficiaries for crop insurance and payment under the 2009 scheme was made, the prosecution of the petitioner for cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery is without any basis. Once there is no material to sustain the principal charge, there cannot be any basis for permitting criminal prosecution.

It shall be an abuse of process of Court to permit prosecution on charges without any basis. The entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.04.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi in Special Case no. 44 of 2013 is quashed so far as this petitioner is concerned.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 16th June, 2023 AFR / Sandeep