- (1.) R. K. Dash, J. Heard Shri B. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
(2.) FROM the tenor of submissions made at the bar I gather an impression that there are two sets of law prevailing in the State one for haves and influential and other for have-nots. One who has money power or status in the society, arms of law cannot apprehend him even if he has committed a heinous crime, but law enforcing agency without any time gap moves into action and arrests ordinary citizen involved in a petty offence. If this sort of unequal treatment is allowed to prevail and a white collar criminal gets protection, people will lose faith in justice delivery system and will not hesitate to take law into their own hands. At this juncture I am reminded of what Charles Dicknes once said, "law grinds the poor, the rich rides on them. " The grievance of the petitioner, a practicing Advocate, is that he should not be asked to face the criminal charge levelled against him under Section 302 IPC. Shri Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for him contends that he is practicing in criminal side and because of that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further urged that the case (Crime No. 51 of 1994 under Sections 147/148/149/ 307/302 IPC) was registered at Nagar police station, district Basti and while it was being investigated, the State Government vide order dated 19-4-1994 transferred the investigation to CBCID Gorakhpur range. Pursuant to the said order investigation was taken up by CBCID, Gorakhpur range and while investigation was in progress, another order was passed by the State Government on 21-12-1995 transferring the investigation from Gorakhpur range of the CBCID to some other range. In spite of the said order investigating officer of CBCID Gorakhpur range completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet No. 5-A dated 31-7-1997 under Sections 147/148/149/307/302 IPC, which has been sought to be quashed in the present proceedings. According to Shri Srivastava once the investigation was ordered to be transferred by the State Government, the investigating officer of Gorakhpur range of CBCID had no jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation and submit charge-sheet and, therefore, the aforesaid charge-sheet being non-est in the eye of laws should be quashed.
(3.) THE other application No. 2324 of 1997 filed by the very same petitioner is being disposed of by this common judgment. In the said case a prayer has been made to comply with the order of the Government transferring the investigation to any other range of the CBCID and to stay the arrest of the petitioner pending investigation. This case came before a bench presided over by Hon'ble I. M. Quddusi, J. and His Lordship stayed the petitioner's arrest in the aforesaid case. Adverting to the submission of Shri Srivastava that charge-sheet so laid against the petitioner is non- est in the eye of law, at the out set I would like to refer the Government order dated 21-12-1995 from which it emanates that one Ambika Singh, President District Congress (I) and Ex. M. L. A. , Basti made an application for transferring the investigation of the aforesaid case and the State Government having accepted the said prayer transferred the investigation from CBCID Gorakhpur range to another range. There is no material on record to show that the aforesaid Government order was at all communicated to the concerned investigating officer. If the order remained in the file as paper work without being communicated to the concerned investigating officer, no fault can be found with the investigating officer in filing the charge-sheet. The petitioner being member of the legal fraternity ought to have taken steps to bring the aforesaid order to the notice of the investigating officer, which he did not for the obvious reason that he may use the said order as a trump card to challenge the charge-sheet, if laid against him to face the trial.;