BARNADETT KARKETTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 19.8.1998 in Special Case No. 35 of 1989 arising out of Kolebira P.S.Case No. 23 of 1989, pending in the court of Sri D. K. Lal, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi. The petitioner further challenged the order of discharge dated 18.6.2002 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Ranchi claiming to be erroneous, illegal and liable to be struck down.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case is that on the basis of some report by farmers of Village Barasaloya made to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gumla to the effect that the Officer and the employees of Kolebira Block Office are demanding bribe in the form of percentage for payment of money under the Scheme which has been sanctioned for construction of Well on their lands on Government subsidy. An enquiry was conducted by the District Development Officer, Gumla who after examining several persons during enquiry submitted his report on the basis of which a first information report was registered under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act). The police investigated into the matter and submitted charge sheet in the case.

(3.) MR . Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court below committed error in taking cognizance and also rejected the petition for discharge illegally as no case is made out against the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner has abetted any offence punishable under section 7 or 11 of the Act. It is further submitted that no sanction has been granted by the competent authority for prosecution under section 7 or 13 of the Act and the Sanctioning authority while according sanction for prosecution has not applied his judicial mind as the Deputy Commissioner has mechanically taken note of the provision of the Indian Penal Code and the Old Prevention of Corruption Act, which is not the subject matter of the case. It is further submitted that a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner after suspending her and she submitted her explanation before the Conducting Officer of the departmental proceeding and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the said departmental proceeding by order dated 10.9.1997. Since both criminal proceeding as well as the departmental proceeding is based on the same facts and, as such, this criminal proceeding is liable to be struck down. The learned counsel also relied upon the case of Supreme Court in P. S. Rajya VS. State of Bihar [(1996)9 Supreme Court Cases 1].