IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22880 of 2010 Ram Chandra Singh, son of Sri Dwarika Singh Versus The State of Bihar through Vigilance, Patna, Bihar. ----------- 4 09.11.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner who happens to be an accused in a Special Case No.12 of 2008 pending before Special Judge, Vigilance-II, arising out of Nigrani P.S. Case No.21 of 2008 has prayed for quashing of order dated 26.10.2009 whereby and where under he along with others has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 420,467,468,471,,406,409,201,120B of the I.P.C. and Section 7, 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly he happens to be a correspondence clerk, P.W.D., Building Division at Sheikhpura but he has got no connivance with the offence so alleged nor he happens to be connected therewith. From perusal of the written report it is evident that no specific allegation has been attributed against the petitioner save and accept alleging that being a correspondence clerk, he kept certain entries vacant in concerned register with an ulterior motive. To explain the same it has further been submitted that from Annexure-2 as well as Annexure-3 it is evident that all the documents were kept by another clerk, namely, Prakash Chandra Sinha, accountant and so whatever defects has been pointed out, that was certainly at the behest of aforesaid Prakash Chandra Sinha. It has further been submitted that the reason best known to the prosecution, the aforesaid Prakash Chandra Sinha has not been made accused in this 2 case, although there happens to be admission on his part with regard to keeping of all the documents by him and for that an explanation has been furnished on his behalf that for the safety of the document he had kept the same at his residence. So submitted that in the aforesaid background petitioner cannot be held responsible for the aforesaid lapses and consequent thereupon, cannot be clubbed with other co- accused. Also submitted that cognizance against two accused have already been quashed vide Cr. Misc. No.45660 of 2009 as well as Cr. Misc. No.19201 of 2010 and the case of petitioner stands on much better footing. At the other hand, the learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance opposed the prayer and submitted that after thorough investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and so his complicity in the alleged offence is itself ingrained. Also submitted that there is an admitted fact on the record with regard to status of the petitioner being correspondence clerk and further, there happens to be prima facie material on record that the relevant registers were kept vacant for so many dates to facilitate the illegal act under antedated manner by the petitioner and so connivance of petitioner during commission of the aforesaid crime as alleged is itself liked So submitted that prayer of the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law. From the written report it is evident that as the contractors have realized withdrawn the amount in connivance with the authorities concerned without completing the allotted work as well as inferior quality of performance which was detected by District Magistrate, on whose, report, vigilance inquiry was conducted and then instant case has 3 been registered. There happens to be specific disclosure in the written report as well as in the report of District Magistrate that all the relevant documents / registers were produced by Accountant, Prakash Chandra Sinha who have had kept the same at his residence. Surprisingly the aforesaid Prakash Chandra Sinha is not arrayed as an accused up till now. There is no material on record nay the vigilance has been able to place connectivity of the petitioner with the aforesaid gaps when the document was in possession of Prakash Chandra Sinha. So it was Prakash Chandra Sinha who was accountable for the aforesaid gaps which has been detected by the authority concerned. The conduct of the authority followed with investigation should have been transparent on this score particularizing how the petitioner was responsible for keeping the gaps in the register being a correspondence clerk, when admittedly the document was not at all in his possession. As such, none of the sections where under cognizance has been taken, more particularly with regard to creation of forged and fabricated document is visualizing from the allegation whatever been alleged in the written report. Consequent thereupon the petition is allowed. The order of cognizance followed with the FIR to the interest of petitioner is quashed PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)