Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42870 of 2010 ====================================================== Anand Kumar Singh, Aged about 78 years, S/o Late Shanker Dayal Singh, R/o Pankaj Apartment Anugraha Narain Path, P.S. – Patliputra Colony Town, District – Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ajay Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Paramhansh Mishra, Dy. S.P. Vigilance Office situated at 6 Circular Road, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 25-06-2012 Heard Sri Subodh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Vigilance Investigation Bureau. This case is a glaring example of tactics adopted for delaying a criminal case. In the case F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1998 against number of public servants and private accused persons for misappropriating huge Government fund. In the case order of cognizance after submission of charge sheet was passed on 31.10.2007. The petitioner, who is accused in the present case approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing the present petition on 02.12.2010 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance which was passed on 31.10.2007 by learned Special Judge Vigilance –I, Patna, in Special Case No. 22 of 1998. Cognizance order was passed under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42870 of 2010 (5) dt.25-06-2012 2 / 7 2 [STATUTE] and Section 5 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case, at subsequent stage, a supplementary affidavit was filed in the month of January, 2012, wherein, the petitioner prayed for adding relief by way of quashing an order dated 16.08.2010 passed by Special Judge – I, Vigilance, Patna. By the said order learned Special Judge has rejected petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While assailing the order learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. no offence is made out. He submits that for such allegation even departmental enquiry was not required to be conducted. He further submits that even during investigation nothing was collected but Vigilance Investigation Bureau submitted charge sheet and in mechanical manner learned Special Judge has passed the order of cognizance. Similarly, discharge petition was rejected by the Special Judge in a mechanical manner. Basically, on aforesaid grounds it has been prayed to quash order of cognizance as well as order whereby discharge petition was rejected. Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42870 of 2010 (5) dt.25-06-2012 3 / 7 3 at the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer and he, despite objection raised by Divisional Accountant, had approved for issuance of tender, that too, within a shorter period i.e. within 15 days, whereas, as per prescribed procedure minimum 21 days was required to be given. It has further been asserted by Sri Sharma that after the petitioner was transferred from the said post and his successor joined, the petitioner, in connivance with the private accused persons and other accused persons had passed the Bill un-authorisedly. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to impress upon the Court that petitioner had handed over charge at subsequent stage. Be that as it may, those detailed facts may not be examined by this Court, that too, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor this Court can conduct a mini trial for coming to the definite conclusion as to whether the offence was actually committed by this petitioner or not. Those facts are required to be examined during the trial. I have perused the order of cognizance i.e. order dated 31.10.2007 which was passed on perusal of the material on record. It is evident that before order of cognizance, prosecution sanction by competent authority was already granted and same Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42870 of 2010 (5) dt.25-06-2012 4 / 7 4 was on record. Even after order of cognizance the matter was delayed for a longer period which is evident from the fact that instead of initiation of the trial the case was still at the stage of charge. However, finally, discharge petition, which was filed by the petitioner along with other accused persons, was rejected on 16.08.2010. Perusal of the order of rejection of discharge petition further makes it clear that learned Special Judge after applying its mind has passed a reasoned order. Of-course, as per the established law as well as provisions contained in Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no requirement for assigning a detailed reason while rejecting the discharge petition. Fact remains, that detailed reasons are required to be assigned only in a case if a Court passes an order for discharge. This Court is reminded by an observation of the Apex Court reported in 1995(3) CRI. L.J. 2935 (Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and others) particularly, paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:- “18. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that after a period of twelve years, the matter should not be allowed to be proceeded with we must say that the complainant is certainly not responsible for this delay. The learned counsel did not even make such a suggestion. Moreover, this contention does not appear to have been raised before the High Court. (The judgment of the High Court is dated 16-6-92) We do not know who is responsible for this delay. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42870 of 2010 (5) dt.25-06-2012 5 / 7 5 As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in In Re.: The Special Courts Bill, 1978, (197

Applicable IPC Section: 477A

Statute Text:
Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Falsification of accounts. Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.