Patna High Court
Lakshman Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 May, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40988 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2016 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Lakshman Prasad Son of Sri Bunna Prasad , R/o Village- Koindi Gosai Patti
P.O.- Tamkui Raj, P.S.- Tarya Sujan, District- Kushinagar Parsauna, Uttar
Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Superintendent of Police Cum S.H.O. Vigilance Investigation Beuro,
Bihar Patna.
3. The Assitant Sub Inspector, Vigilance Investigation Beuro, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Archana Palkar Khopde, Advocate (Vigi)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2024
1. This application is being filed for quashing
the order taking cognizance dated 28.03.2017 passed in
vigilance case no. 120/2016 in special case no. 56/16
passed by learned court of special Judge, Vigilance,
North Bihar, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder,
cognizance has been taken under sections 7/13(2) r/w
section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2. The prosecution case in brief as per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
2/9
F.I.R. is that one complainant namely Baidyanath
Sharma Deputy Project Director, Agricultural Technology
and Management Agency (hereinafter referred as
"ATMA") posted at East Champaran, file application
dated 14.10.2016 alleging therein that the then project
Director of ATMA has demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- in
lieu of disbursement of his salary. On allegation a raiding
party has been constituted and under the leadership of
Deputy Superintendent of Police namely Vijay Kumar
Singh reached at Motihari and while taking action
trapped the accused person with red hand, while taking
bribe of Rs. 5,000/-.
3. In the background of aforesaid allegations
as raised a vigilance case no. 120/16 was registered
whereafter, investigation on the basis of procedure
connected thereof, chargesheet was submitted for the
offence under Section 7/13 (2) read with section 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned
Special Court Vigilance North Bihar, Muzaffarpur has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
3/9
taken cognizance against petitioner under aforesaid
Sections vide order dated 28.03.2017, which is
impugned order of present quashing petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner was director of the
project ATMA, where he was alleged to accept bribe of
Rs. 5,000/- from his deputy project director. It is further
submitted that out of official disputes and differences as
both, opposite party no. 2 and petitioner were working in
same office, the present false implication was raised,
where the petitioner was implicated in very planned and
formulated manner. It is submitted that as on several
occasion in past before lodging this case petitioner being
director of ATMA issued show cause to opposite party
no. 2 and being aggrieved with all such things, the
present false case was registered.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel that
the allegation as to pay bribe of Rs. 5,000/- was for
disbursement of salary as petitioner was absent for three
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
4/9
days in that particular month. It is pointed out that for
the absence of three days, deduction from salary was of
Rs. 5176/- and for that payment of bribe of Rs. 5,000/-
is appearing something absurd on its face, which is not
appearing convincing. It is submitted that telephone bill
of Rs. 5,508/- was required to be paid by opposite party
no. 2 and with said amount by making vigilance
department instrumental, the petitioner was implicated
with present false case. In support of his submission,
learned counsel referred Annexure-X, of the petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that out of same set of facts, for similar
charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against
petitioner, where he was exonerated vide order dated
18.06.2020
, vide Memo No. 505, issued by Deputy
Secretary of Department of Agriculture, Government of
Bihar. It is further pointed out that if the department
fails to establish its case with the same charges during
disciplinary proceeding, where standard of evidence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
required on par of preponderance of evidence, it appears
difficult to establish its case during the trial, where strict
proof of evidence required as to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubts. It is submitted that on this
ground alone the proceeding before the learned trial
court against petitioner is required to be quashed and set
aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
reported in the matter of P.S. Rajya vs. State of
Bihar as reported through (1996) 9 SCC 1.
5. Learned counsel Miss Archana Palkar
Khopde, while appearing on behalf of the Department of
Vigilance of Bihar submitted that the ratio of P.S. Rajya
(supra) is applicable only when charges for
departmental proceedings are similar to that of criminal
proceeding, but in this case the charges as raised
through departmental proceeding are slightly different. It
is also submitted that several things like; chemical
analysis test, FSL report etc. were not considered during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
the departmental proceeding and therefore, it cannot be
said that it was decided with the same fact.
6. Learned counsel also relied upon the legal
ratio established by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported
in the matter of Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of
West Bengal and Another through (2011) 3 SCC
581.
7. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
part of Paragraph No. 17 of P.S. Rajya Case (supra),
which reads as:-
"17. At the outset we may point out that the learned
counsel for the respondent could not but accept the
position that the standard of proof required to
establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than
the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in
the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that
in the present case, the charge in the departmental
proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and
the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in
the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result
of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then
there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the
appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not
be established in a departmental proceedings and in
view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports
submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
further to proceed against the appellant in criminal
proceedings."
8. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph No. 38 of Radheshyam Kejriwal Case
(supra), which reads as:-
"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."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
9. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submissions, it appears that the petitioner and
complainant/informant both were working in same
office/same project, where petitioner was working as
director and informant was working as deputy director. It
appears that exoneration of petitioner from departmental
proceeding is not on technical ground, rather on the
basis of available merit, he was exonerated from the
departmental proceeding vide order dated 18.06.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed on affidavit
on 01.11.2023 in terms of order dated 30.10.2023 that
during departmental proceeding same set of charges
raised against petitioner as of present criminal
proceeding, where the petitioner was exonerated
considering the available merit. Therefore, by
considering the ratio of P.S. Rajya (supra) the
impugned order of taking cognizance dated 28.03.2017
with all its consequential proceedings, qua, petitioner
arising thereof as passed in connection with vigilance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40988 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
case no. 120/2016 in special case no. 56/16, pending
before learned court of special Judge, Vigilance, North
Bihar, Muzaffarpur, is hereby quashed and set aside.
10. Hence, this application stands allowed.
11. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be
returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this
judgment.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Archana/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.05.2024
Transmission Date 13.05.2024
