- (1.) SINCE , both he revision applications arising out of the same order, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 800 of 2012, was initially filed for quashing of the order dated 03/09/2012, passed in Special Case No. 69/2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 52 of 2010), whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge was rejected after holding that there are sufficient materials to frame charges under Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, during pendency of this application, when the charges were framed, under the aforesaid offences that order dated 21/11/2012, was also challenged by way of interlocutory application. So far as Criminal Revision No. 1029/2012 is concerned, it is directed against the order dated 21/11/2012, whereby and whereunder charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13 (1) (c)/ 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the first information report, is that when an Income Tax raid was laid in the house of one Raj Kumar Sinha, the then Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and also at other places, several documents were seized. Those documents alongwith the statements made by one Subodh Kumar Dubey, were made available to the Department of Vigilance. Upon scrutinizing those materials, it was found that said R.K.Sinha, while was posted as Members Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, allowed those crusher machines, which were being run illegally to operate on accepting illegal gratification. One Subodh Kumar Dubey, who was acting as an agent of R.K.Sinha, was instrumental in getting NOC issued by R.K.Sinha illegally. Said Subodh Kumar Dubey in course of his interrogation made by Income Tax Authority, did accept that he had worked for Madhu Koda in the Parliamentary Election. In that course, one Rohitas Krishnan, Proprietor of M/s Quantum Power Tech had given a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs to him for giving it to one Sanjay Poddar and other political workers working for Madhu Koda for the purpose of expending it in the election. He had further disclosed that Binod Kumar Sinha (the petitioner) had given him a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to be given to Sanjay Poddar for expending it in the election. He had also disclosed that several license holders had given illegal gratification to R.K.sinha either for getting a fresh license or for renewal of the license. Non only that, the Staffs and Officers of the Board were also given illegal gratification for favouring the persons to have a fresh license or for renewal of the license. Thus, it has been alleged that said R.K.Sinha, who had been appointed as Member Secretary of the Pollution Board, at the behest of these two petitioners had shown favour to the owners of crusher machines and also to the companies belonging to Binod Kumar Sinha and, thereby, the accused persons in conspiracy with each other, did illegal act, whereby a great loss was caused to the State exchequer and this has been done by misusing the office of the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. On such allegation, the case was registered as Vigilance P. S. Case No. 52/2010, under Sections, 409, 406, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against these two petitioners upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. Subsequently, when the charges were framed against the petitioner Binod Kumar Sinha, under Section 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, said order framing charge was also challenged.
(3.) SIMILARLY , when the charges were framed against the petitioner Madhu Koda under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13 (1)(c) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, that order was challenged. Mr. Bishwajeet Mukherjee and Mr. Anshuman Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Binod Kumar Sinha and Madhu Koda respectively submitted that these two petitioners are being prosecuted on the allegation that the petitioner Binod Kumar Sinha and one Rohitas Krishnan gave Rs. 50 lakhs and 40 lakhs respectively to Subodh Kumar Dubey, who before the authority of the Income Tax, stated that the money had been given by them, for expending it in the election of the petitioner Madhu Koda, whereas the case of the prosecution centers around the allegation that one R.K.Sinha, Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, after taking illegal gratification from owners of the crushers, used to grant NOC or used to grant a fresh license or renewal of the license, but there has been absolutely no connection in between the fact of giving money by Binod Kumar Sinha or Rohitas Krishnan to Subodh Kumar Dubey with the issuance of forged NOC and if there has been no connection at all, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offences of cheating, forgery and also for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which get attracted against R.K.Sinha and other, who had indulged themselves in the act of issuance of NOC on receiving illegal gratification.;