IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.756 of 2006 **** Deepak Kumar, S/O Ramesh Chandra Sharma Resident of Bihta, P.O. Alipur Bihta via Khushurupur, Distt. Patna, Bihar. …. …. Intervener Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner cum Secretary Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Rural Dev. Deptt. Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Rural Sec. Deptt. Bihar, Patna. 4. Under Secretary, Rural Dev. Deptt. Bihar, Patna. 5. The State of Bihar, A.D.G.P., vigilance, Patna 6. The State of Bihar through Cabinet Vigilance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. Rama Kant Sharma, Technical Advisor, Chief Engineer, Rural Development, Chapra. …. … . Respondents/Respondents 8. Ishwar Sahay Ram S/o Rasbihari Ram, R/o Amaithi, P.O. Masaua, Vig. Saunjhauli, Distt. Rohtas (Sasaram) Bihar. …. …. Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 18 30-03-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Cabinet Vigilance, Government of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondent no.7. This appeal is directed against order of the learned Single Judge dated 6-12-2005 passed in CWJC no. 11454/2005 only to the extent that order directed for transfer of investigation of Araria PS case no. 298/05 to the Cabinet Vigilance department for the purpose of investigation only. The writ petition in which the impugned order was passed related to transfer (service) matter but this appeal is not at all concerned with the transfer matter of the parties concerned. The appellant has felt aggrieved by the impugned order because he was not a party to the writ petition. But on giving deep thought to appellant’s grievance, We find that he cannot raise any legal grievance in the matter because it is well settled in law that an accused has no locus standi in the criminal case till the investigation is concluded and cognizance is taken by a court of competent - 2 - jurisdiction. Taking any other view in the matter would not be in public interest. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed upon a judgement of Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs Sampathlal reported in 1985, 1, SCC, 317. That case does not answer the issue of locus standi and legal right noticed above. In that case the State of West Bengal had the locus to feel aggrieved by a court’s order whereby investigation of a criminal case was transferred from a local police station of the State to the CBI. Reliance was also placed upon another judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kaverchand Khatri vrs State of Gujrat reported in 2008(4) PLJR (SC) 51. In that case the investigation of a criminal case lodged by the appellant before the Crime Branch was handed over to another police station under the orders of the court. The Apex Court did not approve passing of an order transferring the investigation of the case from local police station to another police station when the informant was not impleaded as a party in the proceeding and no notice was issued to him. The legal right and interest of an informant in a police case is different and it has been held by the Apex Court that even when the investigation ends in failure to find the accused guilty, intimation must be given to the informant. Thus, vis a vis the issue of locus standi and legal right, the informant and the accused stand on different footing. In the present case We find that that Investigation Bureau of Cabinet Vigilance department has been directed to investigate the first information report lodged by an Executive Engineer of Rural - 3 - Development (Special) Division, Araria. The matter relates to government officials. The writ court considered the likelihood of influence in such matter. We have been informed that after the impugned order was passed, the appellant tried to intervene before the writ court and not only his intervention was allowed but after hearing him a fresh order has been passed to the same effect. Hence, when the appellant has already sought something akin to review by claiming impleadment and hearing, on that ground this appeal cannot succeed. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, We find no good ground to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It appears that due to interim order passed on 6-11-06 the investigation by the Investigation Bureau of Cabinet Vigilance department, Government of Bihar could not make much progress although the records of the criminal case had been sent by the concerned district police to the Cabinet Vigilance department. Delay in investigation of a criminal case helps none but the accused. Hence, We direct the investigating agency to complete the investigation in accordance with law without any delay. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Cabinet Vigilance department. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)