| CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. | 1615 of 2013 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 9 July 2014 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT/S | State of Bihar and others |
| RESPONDENT/S | Ashok Kumar Singh and others |
| BENCH | J Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J V. Gopala Gowda |
INTRODUCTION-
The Case ‘State of Bihar and Ors. vs Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors.’ is about fraud and embezzlement of money charges against the respondents (Resp. No. 1 being an IAS officer) along with forgery charges.
When complaints were received against the respondents, they filed writ petition for those and it eventually became a long litigation proceeding.
While all this was going on, Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 was passed which bifurcated Bihar and Jharkhand and with that the respondent no. 1 was transferred to Jharkhand Cadre.
So, the matter kind of converted into the case that who actually has the jurisdiction to do inquiry and investigation for the transferred offices.
This case carries importance in the way to decide and set a precedent on how the legality and final jurisdiction is acclaimed.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
- Resp. No. 1 (Ashok Kumar Singh) was an IAS officer under cadre of unified Bihar and posted as MD of BSFC (Bihar State Financial Corporation) from May 12, 1994 to June 19, 1998.
- June 1, 1996- complaints against the Resp. No. 1 and 10 other persons (including 6 public servants) were reported that they floated two NGOs and received illegal gratification by giving relief and in outstanding loan recoveries they pressurized BSFC loanees/beneficiaries to deposit money in NGOs. Also, they were allegedly charged with tampering with records.
- An inquiry was initiated by the Vigilance Department of Government of Bihar.
- Resp. No. 1 filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 7680 of 1997) in Patna High Court.
- When High Court’s orders were not complied with, Resp. No. 1 filed a contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 1498/1998) which was disposed of in order to complete the inquiry within 8 months, subject to extension.
- Besides this, Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 bifurcated Bihar and Jharkhand and with that the respondent no. 1 was transferred to Jharkhand Cadre.
- Then Resp. No. 1 filed writ petition before High Court of Jharkhand which was also dismissed.
- Then an FIR was lodged at Patna on August 20, 2002 against respondents by Vigilance Bureau of Investigation of Government of Bihar on the basis of their inquiry u/s 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B of IPC and u/s 13(1)d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Resp. No. 1 filed Writ petition before Patna High Court to quash aforesaid FIR and to restrict further investigation against him.
- Another similar case was registered against resp. no. 1 on March 31, 2003.
- The High Court stated that the present case falls within Sec. 76 of the Reorganization Act and not u/s 89 and hence Vigilance Department of Bihar State has no jurisdiction to inquire or to lodge FIR.
- An appeal preferred by the State of Bihar and ors. against the High Court of Patna’s judgement dated May 7, 2007.
- The above judgement held that the impugned FIR filed on August 20, 2002 as not maintainable and quashed it as per provisions of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.
ISSUES RAISED-
- Whether the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar had jurisdiction to investigate against Resp. No. 1
- Whether any new proceedings can be initiated in the previous place of work after the transfer to another Cadre
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT-
- The offences which were committed by the 1st Resp. were within the state of Bihar and when he was posted as an officer in Bihar Cadre itself, so they have the jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry. They mentioned that the subsequent allotment to Jharkhand Cadre is of no reference here.
- Also, the dates of the alleged offences were prior to the formation of the state of Jharkhand which makes jurisdiction valid.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-
- The Resp. No. 1 contended that as he was transferred to Jharkhand Cadre as per the Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar has no jurisdiction to make investigation against him now.
- The FIR was lodged at Patna (Bihar) against the Resp no. 1 after his allotment to Jharkhand Cadre which was completely out of their jurisdiction.
JUDGEMENT-
After taking into consideration all the records and facts, the court decided that the learned High Court’s order was not complied with to complete the Vigilance inquiry within 8 months so the proceeding stands quashed.
Section 76- The Central Government has power to issue directions from time to time and after bifurcation according to Reorganisation Act, it was clarified that the State of Jharkhand would have jurisdiction to handle and complete pending vigilance inquiries of officers of its Cadre.
Section 89 also relates to pending proceedings which has nothing to do with the fresh FIR lodged after allotment and transfer of Resp. No. 1 to Jharkhand.
So, about the provisions of the Reorganization Act i.e. Sec. 76 and 89, they are not applicable to the present case according to their facts and circumstances.
Also, the inquiry with the Vigilance Department of Bihar should be transferred to Jharkhand and they have to comply with the directions and complete the investigation.
With certain findings, the impugned FIR lodged by findings of Vigilance Inquiry of State of Bihar was not maintainable and the Court hasn’t find reasons to interfere with the impugned order of Patna High Court.
The appeal stands dismissed thereof.
CONCLUSION-
In brief, it can be said that this case establishes a crucial legal precedent as it determines the importance of jurisdiction and power held in matters of investigating a case or instituting FIR. It clarifies the rights and duties which both appellant and respondent should take care while doing anything.
When the HC gave a verdict against the appellant, it approached SC with the appeal to get in its favor. The SC after assessing the facts and circumstances gave the verdict which it felt to be reasonable and legally correct. SC dismissed the appeal and said that it feels no requirement to meddle with the impugned judgement of HC, Patna.
So, in brief this is the case which assures that the justice system never regards the things done without jurisdiction and makes sure to do it the right way. So that the people keep their faith and trust intact and no one is able to abuse and exceed the power given to them by law.
REFERENCES-
By Devanshi Goyal, Faculty of law, JNVU, Jodhpur, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments