STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LAKSHMAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed against the order dated 27-2-1986, as contained in Annexure-5, passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Patna, by which it was held that there was lack of evidence for framing charge against opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and consequently they were discharged. By the same order charges were framed against some of the accused and so prayer has been made to partially quash the order so far it relates to the opposite parties only.

(2.) This case has a chequered history. It was admitted on 12-1-1987, and was ordered to be listed for hearing by a Division Bench on 16th February, 1987. It was heard on 8-4-1987, 9-4-1987 and 10-4-1987 by a Bench of this Court and the judgment was reserved. In course of argument it transpired that one of the points raised in this case was the subject matter of consideration before a Full Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 4073 of 1986. Therefore, this case was also referred for hearing with the said case. The Full Bench by the order dated the 15th January. 1990 decided the question referred for consideration. When both the cases were listed for hearing before a Bench, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party pointed out that there was no common point for determination in the said two cases and thus they should be heard separately. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also conceded and thus it has come for hearing before us.

(3.) In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to notice some broad facts of the case. The prosecution was launched in this case on the basis of the First Information Report (Ext. 1) lodged by the Inspector of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government, of Bihar, Patna. The F. I. R. runs in 45 foolscap pages. The police registered a case and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet. Before initiation of the prosecution, a preliminary enquiry was made by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, According to the case of prosecution, three Compensation cases under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.L.R. Act' were started at Dhanbad upon receipt of application filed by accused K. N. Banerjee. In Dhanbad Compensation Case No. 1/74-75 and Dhanbad Compensation Case No. 3/74-75, compensation was claimed by the said accused for interest in the mines of the Central Manbhum Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. and the Durajpur Rice Mill Co. Pvt. Ltd. in the capacity of the Director. In the Third, Dhanbad Compensation Case No. 1/71-72, relating to the Yadav Lal Trust Estate, Compensation was claimed for the interest in the mines and accused K. N. Banerjee posed to be the Managing Trustee. The said two Limited companies and the Trust were shown to be located in Labhpur in the district Birbhum in West Bengal. In course of investigation, it was founded that accused K. N. Banerjee had no genuine connection with the said business concerns and the Trust at the relevant time for which compensation was paid. It was further found that the said Companies and the Trust were not entitled to compensation in respect of intermediary mining interest under the provisions of the B.L.R. Act, 1950 read with the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951. Further the case of prosecution is that accused K. N. Banerjee claimed and was paid compensation on the basis of forged receipts purported to have been granted in respect of return filed on behalf of the said company in the year 1956. On enquiry, it was found that no such return was filed and the receipts produced by accused K. N. Banerjee were forged and fabricated documents. Accused K. N. Banerjee had also filed copies of some deeds on the basis of which compensation was paid and in course of investigation, the said deeds were also found to be forged.