R.R.PRASAD - (1.) One Kumar Binod had filed a complaint, vide Complaint Case No. 2 of 2008 before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi against Hari Narayan Rai and Anosh Ekka, former Ministers alleging therein that both of them have amassed properties disproportionate to their known source of income. The Special Judge on receiving the complaint sent it before the Vigilance Police Station for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. case no. 26 of 2008 was registered. On completion of investigation, Vigilance submitted charge sheet against both of them. Thereupon this court passed an order in W.P. (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008 on 4.8.2008 directing the C.B.I. to take further investigation in the matter. The C.B.I. having registered the case under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11 /13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as R.C. No. 4(A)/2010/AHD-R took up the matter for further Investigation.
(2.) The C.B.I. having completed Investigation submitted charge sheet on 16.1.2012 against Hari Narayan Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rai and the petitioner Sushila Devi (wife of Hari Narayan Rai) alleging therein that Hari Narayan Rai had amassed properties including landed properties from ill-gotten money in the name of his wife, Smt. Sushila Devi and his brother Sanjay Kumar Rai who tried to justify their income coming from dairy being run by Sanjay Kumar Rai under the partnership of this petitioner but the inflated income shown by them could not be satisfactory explained. That apart, huge investments were made in the post office in the name of the petitioner and Sanjay Kumar Rai which were found to be deposited as securities on behalf of two construction companies floated by Hari Narayan Rai in the name of M/s. Mahamaya Construction and M/s. Maa Gauri Construction with the Executive Engineer of Rural Works Department and Rural Development Department. This petitioner has taken a plea before the authorities of the Enforcement Directorate that she took loan in the year 2008 from different persons but some of the persons in their statements made under Section 161 and also under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have disclosed that that Hari Narayan Rai had given them cash and took cheques of the equivalent amount from them and asked them to treat this transaction as loan.
(3.) The court on filing of the charge sheet took cognizance of the office under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, vide its order dated 16.1.2012 which is under challenge.;