IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36563 of 2008 Rajendra Prasad, son of Sri Deo Saran Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Khasganj, P.S. Sohsarai, District-Nalanda. …………………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar through the Additional Director General, Vigilance, Patna………………..Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Nand Bansh Kumar Singh & Naresh Dikshit, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the Vigilance : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate. -------------------------------- O R D E R 5. 30.8.2011. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cognizance order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna, in Vigilance Sadar (Patna) P.S. Case No.64 of 1995 of 1977-80 corresponding to Special Case No.42 of 1995, whereby the cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 477-A, 409, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner and one Devendra Singh. 2. In brief, the fact of the case is that on the basis of 2 the report of Ramesh Chandra Giri, Police Inspector, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, Nigrani (Sadar) P.S. Case No.64 of 1995 was instituted. The brief facts as contained in the report is that the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bihar, Patna, through letter no.73 dated 18.1.1977, placed order to India Tube Company Limited, Chaurangi Road, Calcutta, for 3507 meters of G.I. Pipe to supply to Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Biharsharif. The Company through R.R. No.A-923609 dated 15.12.1977 sent the 11 bundles of G.I. Pipe worth Rs.50,577.89/- to Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Biharsharif, through Eastern Railway, Biharsharif. The Executive Engineer, Hemant Lal, authorized to Sharda Prasad Singh, the Sub Divisional Officer, P.H.E.D., Biharsharif, who deputed to Devendra Singh, to receive the said consignment and Devendra Singh further deputed to Rajendra Prasad (petitioner) authorizing by power of attorney to receive the said consignment. Rajendra Prasad knowingly at the time of taking delivery received 10 bundles of pipe and one loose bundle of pipe on 3.1.1978. According to the Railway Certificate the deficiency in the pipe was of 69.91 meters but Hemant Lal, the then Executive Engineer, showed the shortage of 1040.20 meters of pipe and filed the claim for 3 Rs.13.847 while according to the Railway record the shortage of pipe was only 69.19 meters. It is also alleged that to carry the pipe from Railway godown to P.H.E.D. Store at Biharsharif the agreement was executed by Devendra Singh in the year 1979-80 and the delivery date in the Railway godown was shown as 15.12.1977 and on different dates in the year 1978. Later on, the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bihar, Patna, through letter no.826 dated 19.12.1977, ordered for supply of 1700 meters of pipe of 25 mm, 18000 meters pipe of 40 mm and 41.500 meters pipe of 80 mm out of which 1200 meters pipe of 25 mm, 11.000 meters pipe of 40 mm and 26.000 meters pipe of 80 mm were to be supplied to Sub Divisional Officer, P.H.E.D., Biharsharif ; 500 meters pipe of 25 mm, 7000 meters pipe of 40 mm and 1950 meters pipe of 80 mm were to be supplied to the Sub Divisional Officer, P.H.E.D., Rajgir. According to the Company the pipes through R.R. No.923749 dated 27.12.1977, 126 quintals in 12 bundles, R.R. No.923749 dated 28.12.1977, 126 quintals in 12 bundles and R.R. No.923857 dated 5.1.1978, 152 quintals in 15 bundles were sent to the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda and the pipes through R.R. No.923755 dated 28.12.1977, 121 quintals in 12 bundles, R.R. 4 No.923756 dated 28.12.1977, 13 bundles and R.R. No.923889 dated 8.1.1978, 11 bundles, were sent to Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda, through Eastern Railway, Biharsharif and Rajgir. The pipes as sent by the Company, the person, who received the delivery showed shortage and made entry in the Railway Delivery Book. In R.R. No.923730 dated 27.12.1977, 9 intact bundles 20 pieces in each and in three loose bundles 12, 12 and 16 were found and the date of receiving was 14.1.1978. In R.R. No.923749 dated 28.12.1977, 10 intact bundles containing 35 pipes in each and two loose bundles containing 30 and 28 pipes were found which were received on 19.1.1978. In R.R. No.923875 dated 5.1.1978 in 13 intact bundles 35 in each and in two loose bundles 29 and 28 pieces were found which was received on 27.1.1978. In R.R. No.923755 dated 28.12.1977, 10 intact bundles 35 pieces in each were found and in two loose bundles 28 and 30 pieces were found which were received on 19.1.1978. In R.R. No.923756 dated 28.12.1977, 10 intact bundles containing 20 pieces of pipes in each and in three loose bundles, 16, 16 and 15 pieces of pipes were found which was received on 19.1.1978. In R.R. No.923889 dated 8.1.1978, 7 intact bundles containing 35 pieces in each and in 5 3 loose bundles, 15, 27 and 28 pieces of pipes were found. The date of receiving the same was 28.1.1978. As such, according to the Railway, there was shortage of 888.78 meters of pipe but the accused persons under conspiracy have shown the shortage of 8609.40 meters of pipes. The persons relating to receive the supply did not file the claim against the Railway regarding loss of Rs.36,164.53/- and claim as filed for Rs.94,870.88/- against the Railway was not approved by the Railway. No step was also taken to stop the payment. As such, the accused persons knowingly did not receive the open delivery showing the shortage only with an intention to show much shortage under conspiracy. 3. After institution of the case, the investigation was proceeded and chargesheet no.115 dated 11.7.2007 was submitted in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna. After hearing on the point of cognizance, the learned Special Judge took the cognizance of the offence on same day i.e., on 11.7.2007 against the petitioner, Rajendra Prasad and Devendra Singh under the aforesaid sections dropping the proceeding against the accused Hemant Lal and Sharda Nandan Singh due to their death. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6 petitioner assailed the order of cognizance only on the ground that while the case was instituted in the year 1995 but chargesheet has been submitted after passing of over 12 years, the learned Special Judge took the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections against the petitioner and Devendra Singh, without considering the long period of investigation affecting the personal liberty of the petitioner by causing mental agony since the institution of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar {2009(1) P.L.J.R. 277 (SC)} in this regard. 5. From perusal of the impugned order itself, it appears that there is no laches on the part of the court as chargesheet has been submitted in the court on 11.7.2007 and on the same day, the cognizance of the offence has been taken through the impugned order dated 11.7.2007. On going through the case of Vakil Prasad Singh (supra) , it appears that in that case in spite of passing about 25 years after the institution of the case, the trial was not commenced and taking into consideration the long period and other materials also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceeding but in the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged in 7 the year 1995 and on investigation the chargesheet is submitted on 11.7.2007 in the court of Special Judge,Vigilance-I, Patna and on the same day, the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna has taken the cognizance of the offence by the impugned order. As such, the fact of the present case is not similar to the fact of the case of Vakil Prasad Singh (supra). There is no doubt that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass such order which may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but this power is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases and the present case is not in that category in which the inherent power can be exercised. 6. I find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The stay order, if any, passed in the case is stand vacated. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)