Jaya Roy, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has filed this criminal revision application for quashing the order dated 26.8,2010 whereby the discharge petition under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) COUNSEL of the Petitioner submits that prosecution case in brief is that a written complaint dated 2.1.2005 filed by one Madhusudan Dubey who was posted and functioning during the relevant time as Despatch Clerk (Road Sales) at Maheshpur Colliery, although his designation was Accounts Assistant and his controlling officer was Project Officer, Maheshpur Colliery. It is further alleged that to the effect that in the month of October, Sri S.C. Tiwary shown, a letter/ wireless message to the complainant, issued form the Vigilance Department, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad that on what authority the complainant was posted in the Sales Department. It is further alleged that the said S.C. Tiwary revealed to the complainant that Sri Yogeshwar Pathak, Vigilance Inspector, BCCL, Dhanbad had sent the said letter. Mr. Tiwary also revealed to the complainant that he as well as other staff of the Sales Department used to give illegal gratification of Rs. 500/ - per month to Sri Yogeshwar Pathak, Vigilance Inspector, BCCL. Upon this, when the complainant went to Sri Pathak (Petitioner) on 1.1.2005, Sri Pathak had demanded Rs. 4,000/ - from him and directed him to handover Rs. 4,000/ - to S.C. Tiwary. It is further alleged that in this connection when the complainant met Sri S.C. Tiwary on the same day on 1.1.2005, he again confirmed the demand made by Sri Y. Pathak and he assured the complainant that if he would give Rs. 4,000/ - for Sri Pathak then his case will be settled and there will be no further harassment caused by the Vigilance Department, BCCL, Dhanbad to him. Counsel of the Petitioner submits that there is no material to prove that whether Mr. Pathak (Petitioner) has demanded any bribe from the complainant. It is further submitted that the entire case is false and fabricated against the Petitioner after planned conspiracy. It: 15 also contended that the complainant has been set up by said Sri S.C. Tiwary to drag the Petitioner in a false case so that in future, the Petitioner may not dare to initiate any action against the corrupt employees. Counsel of the Petitioner further has submitted that the sanction order for prosecution is not in accordance with law as the same has not been accorded on perusal of the necessary documents - as F.I.R., statement of prosecution witnesses and other relevant documents. Counsel of the C.B.I, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the C.B.I. He has submitted that there is ample evidence both oral and documentary to prove the charges made against the Petitioner and other co -accused and the same has been stated in detail in the charge -sheet so filed against them. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the investigation has disclosed that the Petitioner used to target BCCL officials posted at Weighbridge and Dispatch section at different BCCL Collieries and forced each of them to pay @ Rs. 500/ - per moth for their posting at lucrative post showing them power of the post of Vigilance. This fact has been corroborated by some witnesses such as shri Nilkanth Mishra, Weighbridge Incharge of Akash Kinari Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad and Shri Mohan prasad. Sales Clerk, Railway Electronic Weighbridge.
(3.) INVESTIGATION has also disclosed that the accused Petitioner and the co -accused, Sushil Chandra Tiwary, were in active connivance and league. A letter dated 23.11.2004 under the signature and writing of the accused Petitioner and addressed to the Area Sales Manager, Govindpur Area No. 3, BCCL, Dhanbad, was found in the possession of the co -accused on the date of trap. This letter was issued by the accused Petitioner calling for certain information in respect of one Shri T.P. Singh of Akash Kinari Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad. On the examination of Shri A. K. Mishra, Dy. CME (Vigilance), BCCL, Dhanbad, he has stated that the said letter was issued by the accused Petitioner not in proper official channel. The letter should have been addressed to the Chief General Manager of the concerned area and not to the Area Sales Manager (i.e. the co -accused) and it should have been under the signature of either the GM (Vig.) or Dy. GM (Vig.). Moreover, there is no dispatch number mentioned on the said letter. In investigation it has further disclosed that the accused Petitioner issued a wireless message dated 2.11.2004 addressed to the CGM, Area -Ill, BCCL, Dhanbad, seeking for information with respect to the reasons of posting of Shri Madhusudan Dubey, complainant, at the sensitive post of Sales Department signed and issued by the accused Petitioner in the capacity of the Dy. CME (Vig.). BCCL, Hqr., Dhanbad. Investigation has disclosed that the Dy. CME (Vig.), BCCL, Hqr., Dhanbad, i.e. Shri A. K. Mishra was very much present in the office on 2.11.2004 but he was not aware of the aforesaid wireless message. Investigation has also disclosed that on the direction of Sushil Chandra Tiwari, co -accused, Shri Madhusudan Dubey, complainant, visited official residence of the accused Petitioner located at Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad, in the early morning on 2.1.2005 along with one Shri Anand Lal Dashondhi, Clerk of Area -III, BCCL. The accused Petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/ - for one year (i.e. January, 2004 to December, 2004 @ Rs. 500/ - per month from the complainant for holding lucrative post of Dispatch Incharge at Maheshpur Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad. This amount of illegal gratification was negotiated and scaled down to Rs. 5,000/ -. Therefore, the accused Petitioner received Rs. 1,000/ -from the said complainant and directed the later (the complainant) to give the rest amount i.e. Rs. 4,000/ - to the co -accused. Sushil Chandra Tiwari, or one Shri Bhola Nath Tiwari, Clerk of Area -Ill, BCCL, on 3.1.2005. AM this happened in presence of aforesaid Shri Anand Lal Deshondhi.;