IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1381 of 2003 HARIDWAR PANDEY aged 75 years son of late Ram Dutt Pandey, resident of Laxmi Bhawan, South Patliputra Colony, At + P.O. Patliputra,Patna-13----petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Vigilance Commissioner Bailey Road, Patna 2.Sri D.P.Ojha, Director General, Vigilance, Bihar, 6, Circular Road, Patna 3.Sri Prakash Rai, Special Judge, Vigilance (South Bihar) Patna 4.Sri P.P.Singh, Spl. P.P.Vigilance, Civil Court,Patna ---opp. parties ----------- 6. 26.8.2009 Show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 on 6.8.2009. However, it was reported by the Office that the said show cause was missing. Accordingly, photo copy of the said show cause which had already been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner was filed by learned counsel for the Vigilance. Learned counsel for the petitioner after perusing the said show cause states that it is identical with the copy served upon him. The photo copy of the said show cause is taken on the record as the true copy of the show cause. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance Department. The present application was originally filed as a Criminal Writ Case seeking an 2 appropriate writ, order/direction commanding the respondent Vigilance Department to comply with the order dated 27.3.1991 passed by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 2368 of 1991. By the said order it was directed that before examining any new witness and bringing any new document in evidence which are not mentioned either in case diary or in the charge-sheet or in the F.I.R., the prosecution shall furnish a copy of the statement of the witnesses proposed to be examined and a copy of the document proposed to be admitted in evidence to the accused at least one week in advance. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order was not complied. Subsequently on 15.2.2002 a prayer was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to convert the application into an application for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India which was granted. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the details of the witnesses brought from outside charge-sheet which are mentioned in paragraph-4 of the application were not supplied before their 3 examination as directed by the order dated 27.3.1991 under contempt nor the documents were supplied. Till today, according to learned counsel, the said order has not been complied. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even now if the said details are given the accused-petitioner would have a right to seek recall of the said witnesses and cross examine them. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, has taken a stand on the basis of the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 that the prosecution evidence was closed long time back on 29.8.1998. Claiming non-compliance of the order dated 27.3.1991 the petitioner filed Cr.W.J.C.No.483 of 1998 along with I.A.No. 632 of 1998. In the I.A.No. 632 of 1998 appropriate interim direction was sought to the trial court during the pendency of the writ application for ensuring that the prosecution should be allowed to examine any witness only on supply of police papers in advance as already ordered by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 2368 of 4 1991. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the said Criminal Writ and Interlocutory Application were dismissed by this Court by order dated 23.9.1998 not finding any substance in the allegations made by the petitioner. The Court also considered the fact that the prosecution evidence has been closed. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that the present application was filed more than three years after the disposal of the said Criminal Writ yet no mention is made in the present application regarding dismissal of the Criminal Writ Application and Interlocutory Application filed therein in which the same prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected; rather a false statement made in paragraph-12 of the present application that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier in the matter. The same, according to learned counsel for the Vigilance, amounts to not only suppression of fact but also making of a false statement of not having earlier moved this Court which would attract the penal provisions under 5 Section 193 I.P.C. for which, according to him, the petitioner should be prosecuted. Learned counsel also refers to an order dated 14.7.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Or.Cr.Misc.No. 7 of 2004 filed by the present petitioner for sending to jail for contempt the persons named in the said contempt application including several Judges of this Court and also the then learned Senior Counsel for the Vigilance. It is stated that the Court in the said order has considered in detail every attempt made by the petitioner to ensure that the proceedings must never close. The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had been repeatedly making series of allegations against all the Judges right from the trial court to this Court and the Supreme Court, sparing no one whose decision went against him. It was noted by this Court that the accused has a calculated intention to keep alive the trial till he lives so that the trial may not conclude during his life time because if the charges are proved then attachment of property is a foregone conclusion. It was 6 further noted that pursuant to the same he had filed as many as 99 litigations. Ultimately this Court held the petitioner having committed contempt in the face of the Court and directed him to be taken into custody to serve the sentence of simple imprisonment for a term of six months. On the basis of the aforesaid facts it is submitted by learned counsel for the Vigilance that the present proceeding started originally as a Criminal Writ case and subsequently converted into a contempt application is part of the same series of litigations being filed by the petitioner for the sole purpose of keeping the litigations alive at any cost and not getting the same concluded during his life time. It is submitted that somehow or other the petitioner is trying to delay the matter. Learned counsel points out that even after the prosecution evidence had closed on 29.8.1998 it took nearly 8 years to record the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply submits that the order dated 23.9.1998 does not decide the issue which was with respect to formal witnesses and documents only and thus it cannot be said to be a case of suppression. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances on the record and also the submissions of learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the present application was filed by suppressing the fact of having filed another Criminal Writ along with Interlocutory Application with the same prayer which had been rejected on 23.9.1998. In fact the petitioner has made a categorical assertion that he has not moved this Court in the matter earlier which amounts to a false statement on behalf of the petitioner. Even apart from the facts and findings against the petitioner, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 14.7.2004, it is evident that the petitioner being guilty of suppression of facts the petition is fit to be rejected on that score alone. As a matter of fact, the 8 said false statement would be sufficient for this Court to further proceed against the petitioner for his prosecution. However, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the various materials on the record no order is being passed in that regard. The application for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court against the opposite parties is, accordingly, rejected. Let the trial court expedite the trial and in any case conclude the same within six months from today. The petitioner is directed to ensure the production of his witnesses otherwise the trial court may consider closing the defence evidence. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/