- (1.) Before coming to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the Vigilance, the order which was passed on 20.3.2015 needs to be recorded which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was an agreement in between M/s. REIL, a Public Sector Undertaking and M/s. JREDA for solar electrification of 6194 houses and 613 streets in the district of Khunti. Since M/s. REIL was unable to execute the work an understanding arrived at in between M/s.PPS Enviro Power Limited and M/s REIL that the work would be executed by M/s.PPS Enviro Power Limited which decision was communicated to M/s JREDA. Accordingly, work order was issued in the name of M/s.REIL, a Public Sector Undertaking but copy of it was marked to M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited. Thereupon M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited executed the work and even payments were made to M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited. Thereupon, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court wherein allegations of misappropriation, Nepotism was alleged against the officials of M/s. JREDA. By virtue of the order passed by this Court, Vigilance registered a case initially against M/s. JREDA and also against this petitioner. During investigation, some allegations were found against the petitioner and presumably for that reason, the petitioner was summoned by the Vigilance. The petitioner responded to that summon and appeared before the officer of the Vigilance on 14.9.2012 and gave statement in extenso which was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter on 23.12.2014 charge sheet was submitted wherein the petitioner was shown absconder and thereby warrant of arrest was issued by the court by holding that the petitioner is evading arrest and subsequently, process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued against the petitioner which is quite illegal. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that it is true that on 14.9.2012 statement of the petitioner was recorded which was prior to lodging of the FIR but the charge sheet has been submitted on 23.12.2014 which is after more than two and half year and during this period, if the Investigation Officer did find the petitioner evading arrest nothing wrong was committed by reporting to the court that the petitioner is evading his arrest, on the basis of which, warrant of arrest has been issued which fact can be demonstrated from certain paragraph of the case diary. Therefore, the case be adjourned so that he may get hold of the case diary. In view of the submission, let these matters be listed on 27.3.2015 under the heading for orders."
(2.) Mr. Soumitra Sen, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when something wrong was found on the part of the authority of JREDA in entrusting M/s.PPS Enviro Private Limited to execute work without following norms the statements of the petitioners, who happen to be the Directors of M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited, was recorded before lodgment of the case. However, when the case was lodged, the petitioners were also made accused though the petitioners cannot be held responsible for non-adhering to any rule or norms by M/s.JREDA and thereby the petitioner was quite sure that no culpability would be found on the part of the petitioner but the Vigilance when submitted charge sheet, it also made M/s. PPS Enviro Private Limited and also its Directors accused to which these petitioners had no knowledge. In course of time, warrant of arrest was issued and subsequently, even the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued against the petitioner which has been challenged before this Court but the petitioner would not be challenging the propriety and legality of the order at this moment, rather the petitioner would be surrendering before the court but the court be directed to consider the case as to whether there has been at all any necessity of taking the petitioner in custody which the court should always consider in view of the decision rendered in a case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2012) 9 SCC 791].
(3.) As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that the Investigating Officer after making full compliance of the provision of the Code made requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest and the court being satisfied with that had issued warrant of arrest first and then process under Section 82 and now even the process under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued.;