BAIKUNTH NATH DEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, one of the accused in the Land Acquisition Scam in the district of Hazaribagh, has prayed for issuance of a writ/direction for handing over the investigation of Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 40/97 State V/s. Ram Dular Gupta, registered under Sections 403, 406, 420 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "C.B.I.") from the investigating agency of the State for a free and fair investigation of the said criminal case.

(2.) Factual matrix will highlight the situation which led the petitioner to move this Court. Some lands in Mouja Siyal, P.S. Ramgarh in he Hazaribagh district were acquired for the purpose of coal mining and other ancilliary works of Central Coalfield Ltd. on the basis of a notification dated 31.12.1981 which was published on 1.1.1982 and possession of lands was taken on 24.2.1982. Altogether 19 cases were tried analogously by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh and were disposed of by a common judgment. Not being satisfied with the award, one Om Nath Sahu filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (shortly L.A. Act) giving rise to Land Reference Case-No. 28/86. Similarly, other awardees filed petitions and their cases were, though registered separately, but all were heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated 19.7.1990 enhancing the rate of compensation. Sri Gupta was a common lawyer for all such awardees. On 20.4.1995 said Om Nath Sahu made a complaint before the Land Acquisition Judge alleging, inter alia, that he had engaged Sri Ram Dular Gupta, Advocate of Hazaribagh to conduct his said Land Reference Case No. 28/86 on his behalf and said Ram Dular Gupta engaged Sri B.N. Dey (the present petitioner) as Senior Counsel on behalf of the awardee. It was agreed between Om Nath Sahu and Ram Dular Gupta that the fee of both the lawyers and the cost of the proceeding will be realised at the rate of 30% from the enhanced amount, if any. When the Land Acquisition Judge passed the judgment on 19.7.1990 said Sri Ram Dular Gupta received the entire amount from the Court on behalf of the awardee through bank draft of Union Bank of India, Pelawal Branch on 6.4.1991. The Court also informed the Bank for payment to the said Advocate, Sri Gupta. Interest of the awarded money to the tune of Rs. 6.00 lacs was also received from the Court by way of Bank draft by said Sri Ram Dular Gupta and he got the same encashed from the said Branch. After receiving the principal as well as interest amount the said Advocate kept the same in a fixed deposit in the said Bank after deducting fee and cost. However, Om Nath was kept in dark about said withdrawal and keeping the rest amount in FDR by Sri Gupta. In spite of several requests made by Om Nath for handing over the said amount to him after adjusting the amount towards fee and cost, said Sri Gupta did not oblige him and the awardee was constrained to send a pleader's notice through one Sri Gulam Zerani, Advocate of Hazaribagh on 6.9.1994 demanding payment of the awarded amount with interest. Though the said notice was received by Sri Gupta on 1.11.1994 but as no amount was paid to the awardee and on this account he made a request to the Land Acquisition Judge to direct Sri Gupta to make payment of the entire amount. On such complaint being received, a three-member fact-finding committee was constituted by the District Judge, Hazaribagh for going through the allegation levelled against Sri Gupta. This Committee was constituted on 9.9.1996 and, thereafter, through bank drafts and cheques dated 3.2.1997 said Sri Gupta paid 60% of the dues plus interest to the awardee. All these documents have been annexed by the petitioner in this writ application. Three-member committee gave its report on 20.1.1997 holding, inter alia, that said Sri Gupta did not pay Rs. 36.00 lacs to the awardees. The Committee was of the opinion that said Advocate Sri Gupta has criminally misappropriated and defalcated the awarded amount received by him from the Court on behalf of the awardees, Madhur Sahu, Om Nath Sahu, Jagu Sahu and others. On the basis of the said report, learned Sub-Judge No. 1, Hazaribagh lodged a FIR inter alia, informing the police that he also found a prima facie case of criminal misappropriation, defalcation of the money and criminal breach of trust against said Sri Gupta Sadar RS. Case No. 40/97 was registered against the said Advocate on 14.2.1997 under various Sections of the Penal Code. Certified copy of the FIR along with the enquiry report is Annexure 9. Sri Gupta, apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case, moved the learned Sessions Judge Hazaribagh for grant of anticipatory bail but the prayer ws refused and by its order dated 18th March, 1997 Ram Dular Gupta was directed to surrender before the Court below within 10 days of the said order. Sri Gupta then approached this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1797/97(R) with a prayer to quash the FIR and while issuing notice to the Investigating Officer (Opposite Party No. 2 in that case) interim protection was given to said Sri Gupta. The relevant portion of the order thus :

(3.) In the present writ application a grievance has been made by the petitioner that though the Superintendent of Police Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) in the supervision note (Annexure 10) directed the Investigating Officer to make prayer before the Chief judicial Magistrate to make the present petitioner along with one Govind Mahto as accused in Sadar P.S. Case No. 40/97 and to obtain warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr PC but hag indicated that the processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr PC and warrant of arrest against Sri Gupta could not be executed either for the stay granted by this Court or for the interference of the High Officials. This supervision note of the S.P. is dated 16.8.1997 which clearly indicates that respondent No. 3 clearly directed the I.O. to execute the warrant of arrest and processes against the accused and to request the Regional Inspector General of Police Ranchi (respondent No. 2) to vacate the stay of execution of processes against the accused Gupta.