B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Mr. Modi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Vigilance P.S. Case No.76 of 2015 was instituted upon this petitioner, although initially the district police has instituted Markachho P.S. Case No.83 of 2015 dated 16.12.2015 which was later on taken over and investigated by the A.C.B. He further submitted that even the Enquiryreport submitted by Additional Finance Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand nothing could be found against this petitioner but on his recommendation, the case was handed over to the A.C.B. for further investigation. He also submitted that this petitioner is a retired employee and had no concern with cutting of the trees. He has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of his presence at the alleged place of occurrence. The sections levelled upon him are not applicable but the court below took cognizance of the offence. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. does not reveal involvement of this petitioner. Even the sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply upon this petitioner as admittedly he is a retired employee.
(3.) Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A.C.B. submitted that this petitioner was involved in cutting of the trees standing in the premises of the Dak Bungalow, Zila Parishand, Markachho, Koderma without obtaining any permission from the competent authority. The presence of this petitioner with other co-accused persons were transpired during course of investigation. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against this petitioner also. The court below has taken cognizance after finding prima facie case against this petitioner.;