- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a case was registered being Khunti P.S. Case No. 60 of 2000, under section 409, 467, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and number of other accused persons. The facts of the case is that when D.C., Ranchi came to know that several Engineers including the petitioners, who had been entrusted to supervise the work of construction/repairing of the road under R.E.O., Ranchi, had indulged themselves in several kinds of irregularities, constituted a committee, who inspected different works, which have been done under the supervision of Hari Nath Chatterjee and other engineers and came to the finding that the engineers including the petitioners posted at the relevant point as Junior Engineer at Kerra and Sonahatu without getting the work completed, got the entire amount withdrawn on such allegation the case was registered of misappropriation cheating etc. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation the police did not find any culpability on the part of the petitioners in the matter relating to misappropriation of the amount and thereby a final report was submitted whereby the petitioners were exonerated from the execution. However, the court while differing with the opinion given by the police, took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 409, 467, 471, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2008, without assigning any reason and, thereby, the court did commit illegality in view of decision rendered in a case of "Nupur Talwar -versus -Central bureau of Investigation, 2012 2 SCC 188]" and also in view of the decision rendered in a case of " M/s. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust -versus -M/s. India Infoline Limited, 2013 2 ECC 326 ", whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that court, in such situation, requires to pass order by assigning reason and also the role being played by the person in the alleged commission of the offence but since no reason has been assigned for holding that prima -facie materials are there, order impugned is fit to be set aside.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , final report, whereby the petitioners had not been sent up for trial, had been submitted. In spite of that court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners without assigning any reason as to on what basis the court came to the conclusion that prima -facie material are there against the petitioners. In that event, the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 taking cognizance against the petitioners is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for passing afresh order in accordance with law without having prejudiced by the earlier order. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.;