PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA VS STATE OF JHARKHAND

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1333 OF 2022

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.3440 OF 2021]

PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA …..APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND ..…RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Appellant has assailed the final judgment dated

06.01.2020 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in

Criminal Revision No. 1057 of 2018, by which the order dated

04.07.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, AntiCorruption

Bureau dismissing the application for discharge filed by the

Appellant under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short “Cr.P.C.”) in connection with Special Case No. 02 of

2011 has been affirmed. The criminal case was registered against

the Appellant and others for commission of offences under

Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120B of Indian

Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read

with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC

Act”).

3. The facts briefly put are that the Appellant was working as

an Executive Engineer (Electrical) (“EE”) in the Accelerated Power

Development Reforms Program (“APDRP”) Wing of Jharkhand

State Electricity Board (in short “JSEB”) from 07.12.2004. During

his tenure as EE, one Ramjee Power Construction Limited

(hereinafter “RPCL”) was awarded a contract of work under

APDRP vide work order dated 27.01.2005. On account of delay in

execution of the work and to resolve the said issue, the then

Chairman JSEB, Mr. Shivendu, convened a meeting on

21.12.2006, wherein he orally instructed Mr. R.P. Agarwal, the

then Chief Engineer (“CE”), to place the agenda for next board

meeting for termination of the contract of M/s RPCL. Prior to

convening of the next Board meeting, Mr. V.N. Pandey was

appointed as the new Chairman, JSEB on 04.01.2007. The new

Chairman called for a meeting on 06.02.2007/07.02.2007 for the

agenda to review the progress of RPCL’s work. In the said

meeting, other officers of JSEB including Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE,

had participated. In the meeting, it was mutually agreed by JSEB

and RPCL that full effort to complete the work within the

extended time, i.e. July, 2007 shall be made by RPCL. In

furtherance of the decision taken in the aforesaid meeting, Mr.

R.P. Agarwal, CE, made various correspondences reminding

RPCL to complete the pending work. On retirement of Mr. R.P.

Agarwal, Mr. S.C. Shrivastava Superintending Engineer

(Electrical) was made in charge in place of Mr. R.P. Agarwal.

Meanwhile, RPCL sent letters dated 16.05.2007, 18.05.2007 and

08.06.2007 requesting him for further extension of time. In the

said correspondences, it was said that RPCL had already invoked

the arbitration clause on 22.12.2006, in terms of the contract

and requested JSEB for appointment of an arbitrator. The said

letters were handed over to the Appellant, on which under the

instructions, the Appellant prepared a note dated 08.06.2007

and placed it before the Chairman on the issue relating to

appointment of an arbitrator and waiver of penalty, as advised by

learned Advocate General (“AG”) of State of Jharkhand in

similarly placed transmission lines projects.

4. Thereafter, vide JSEB resolution dated 28.06.2007, a

committee consisting of one Mr. GNS Munda (Member,

Technical), Mr. A. Banerjee (Finance) and Mr. A.K. Mishra (Law

Officer) was constituted, which on 09.08.2007 suggested three

names for appointment of an Arbitrator. Out of the three names

as suggested, Mr. Ramayan Pandey was appointed as the

arbitrator by consent. Arbitration proceedings commenced and

an interim award dated 25.11.2007 was passed in favour of

RPCL. Thereafter, an agenda accompanied with the aforesaid

award was put before Chairman, Mr. B.M. Verma prior to asking

for an opinion from the AG, State of Jharkhand, regarding

enforceability of the award. Later, as per the opinion of the AG,

JSEB vide Board Resolution dated 05.04.2008 and 07.04.2008,

decided to implement the interim award. It is worthwhile to state

that, Mr. GNS Munda (Member, Technical) as well as Smt.

Rajbala Verma (then Finance Secretary, State of Jharkhand) were

part of this Board meeting.

5. It is pertinent to mention that, while giving effect to the

award, JSEB was facing shortage of funds. However, JSEB

decided to make internal enquiry into handling the work contract

given to RPCL. On the basis of the said enquiry, allegations of

malpractice and financial irregularity were levelled against the

Appellant and some others. The Secretary, JSEB vide letter dated

30.07.2010, made a request to the Director General of Vigilance

Bureau (“DGP”) to lodge an FIR against the Appellant and others

for offences punishable under Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471,

477A and 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with

13(2) of PC Act. Additionally, another letter dated 03.09.2010,

was issued by Smt. Rajbala Verma (then Vigilance Commissioner)

to the DGP, recommending the same action against the

Appellant. As already noted above, Smt. Rajbala Verma was also

a part of the Board meeting (being the then Finance Secretary,

State of Jharkhand) that had approved the implementation of the

arbitral award. In the said facts, FIR dated 20.01.2011 was

lodged against the Appellant and other officers of the JSEB.

Investigation was carried out, chargesheet dated 08.01.2016 was

filed and cognizance was taken by the Court dealing with

vigilance cases vide order dated 11.01.2016. Thereafter, the

Appellant moved a discharge petition under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by the learned Special

Judge vide order dated 04.07.2018. The Court observed that

sufficient material exists to make out a primafacie case against

the Appellant for framing of charges.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred a criminal

revision assailing the aforesaid order. The High Court vide

impugned order dismissed the revision and affirmed the order

passed by the learned Special Judge. The High Court was

primafacie influenced by the fact that the previous chairman,

JSEB, Mr. Shivendu had orally instructed to put up the agenda

for termination of the contract of RPCL. On demitting the office

by the said Chairman, the Appellant had put the file noting

before the subsequent Chairman Mr. V.N. Pandey, regarding

referral of the matter for arbitration without mentioning about

the instructions given by the previous Chairman, JSEB. The High

Court found fault in the action of the Appellant of having

proposed an agenda regarding wrongful implementation of the

award which was challenged belatedly. Thus, having found a

primafacie case against the Appellant, the High Court dismissed

the revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Prashant Bhushan

strenuously urged as under:

(i) the Appellant was not having decisionmaking power or

financial authority to carry out the contract and the award

passed. The nature of duty assigned to the Appellant was

confined to follow instructions of his superiors and by no

stretch of imagination he can be said to have the power to

refer the matter for arbitration in a case where the dispute

is arising out of a work contract between JSEB and RPCL;

(ii) there is no concealment of the instruction of the previous

Chairman pertaining to termination of the contract as

substantiated by noting dated 08.06.2007 on page no. 48 of

the APDRP file which was the next page of noting of the CE

on page no. 47, under instructions from the Chairman;

(iii) the prosecution has concealed that the verbal instruction

for termination of contract given by the previous Chairman

in the meeting dated 21.12.2006, had been overturned

within two months by the new Chairman, Mr. V.N. Pandey

in the JSEB tripartite meeting held on 06.02.2007 and

07.02.2007, in which the Appellant was not a member;

(iv) the questionable noting dated 08.06.2007 of the Appellant

was based on facts and documents forming part of the

APDRP file endorsed to him by his controlling officer;

(v) the Appellant is being prosecuted on a wrong premise from

the stage of granting time to complete the work, reference

made to arbitration and till further directions for making the

payment for the interim award passed against JSEB, in

favour of the RPCL. He was not a part of the decisionmaking process or of taking further steps to implement the

said award. Thus, culpability as alleged against the

Appellant, on the pretext of not putting up the agenda for

cancellation of the contract amounts to abuse of the power

and primafacie, no case to prosecute him is made out;

(vi) there is no allegation of illegal gratification, undue benefit or

disproportionate assets qua the Appellant in the FIR or

chargesheet which is also backed by the income tax records

of the Appellant;

(vii) prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the

Appellant and RPCL to whom the benefit is alleged to have

been made;

(viii) while granting bail to the Appellant on merits, it was

categorically observed by the High Court that the Appellant

had put up the matter before higher authorities for

instructions before proceeding further and did not act

unilaterally;

(ix) except for the Director of Finance, none of the decisionmaking authorities namely, members of Central Purchase

Committee and the Board of JSEB have been made accused

in this case;

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the RespondentState has

argued in support of the concurrent findings of both the Courts

and contended that the entire factual gamut of the instant appeal

stems around the pleadings of defence including reliance on

documents which cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.

It is further urged that at the stage of framing of charge, the

scope of interference is limited, and the Court is not required to

see as to whether there are sufficient grounds for conviction. The

Court has to only see the material collected during investigation

and on consideration of the same, a prima facie case is made out

or not.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the record, which reveals that after the board meeting

dated 21.12.2006, the then Chairman Mr. Shivendu had orally

instructed the then CE, Mr. R.P. Agarwal to place the agenda for

termination of the contract of RPCL. As per the said instructions,

the agenda was proposed and placed on 27.12.2006 by Mr. R.P.

Agarwal. On the said proposed agenda, Member Technical put up

a note on 19.01.2007, recording “please discuss”. Thereafter, the

meeting of the JSEB was held on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007,

which was presided over by the new Chairman Mr. V.N. Pandey

and Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE, was a member of the said meeting.

Either at the stage of the proposed agenda or in the meeting of

the JESB held on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007, the Appellant had

not participated in the decisionmaking process. The minutes of

the aforesaid meeting is relevant and reproduced as under:

“MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 06.02.2007 &

07.02.2007 AT JSEB HQR.

The following officer, consultant & contractors were present in

the meeting:

1. Shri V.N. Pandey Chairman

2. Shri R.P. Agarwal Chief Engineer (APDRP)

3. Shri P. Ranjan General Managercum

Chief Engineer/Jamshedpur

4. Shri Niranjan Rai Director (Finance)

5. Shri Madhup Kumar Director (RE/Plan)

6. Shri P. Raghu RITES Ltd.

7. Shri Y.P. Singh do

8. Shri A.K. Singh RPCL

9. Shri T.K. Bhattacharya do

The issue of M/s RPCL was discussed in length. Work of

Jamshedpur town under APDRP has been awarded to M/s RPCL

vide W.O. Nos. 28 & 29 dated 27.01.2005. The progress was

reviewed and found that progress is veryvery slow. After

discussion, JSEB & M/s RPCL mutually agreed on the following

points:

1. M/s RPCL will submit photo copy of all orders placed by them

for procurement of materials for the APDRP work of

Jamshedpur to Chief Engineer/APDRP & m/s RITES Ltd., the

consultant.

2. JSEB will help Ms RPCL for procurement of materials.

3. JSEB will be make payment immediately (probably within a

week) after submission of bills by M/s RPCL.

4. Approval of additional B.O.Q. and items shall be given by

JSEB immediately.

5. M/s RPCL will submit fresh inspection call of materials to

Electrical Superintending EngineercumCEO/General

ManagercumChief Engineer, Jamshedpur for getting

inspecting officer deputed.

6. M/s RPCL will contract Chief Engineer (APDRP) if here is any

delay in issuing Road permits by Chief Engineer (S&P).

7. M/s RPCL agreed that they will apply their full efforts to

complete the project so that it may be completed within

extended completion period i.e. July’ 07 instead of going for

Arbitration/Court of Law.

8. JSEB will review the matter of L.D. clause after completion of

the project work.

Sd/

(R.P. Agrawal)

Chief Engineer (APDRP)

Memo No.

Dated

Copy forwarded to all concerned officers/M/s RITES Ltd./ M/s

RPCL for information and necessary action.

Fax – 2543986”

10. The perusal of the aforesaid minutes and the proposed

agenda dated 27.12.2006 prepared by Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE,

reveals that the oral recommendation of the then Chairman, Mr.

Shivendu, was drawn in the proposed agenda but it was not

acted upon as per the noting dated 19.01.2007 made by the

Member Technical who made an endorsement “Please discuss”.

Thereafter, what was the agenda that was put forth in the next

JSEB meeting, is not on record. The minutes of the Board

meeting reflect that Mr. R.P. Agarwal who had prepared the

agenda dated 27.12.2006, was a part of the said meeting. The

decisions were taken in the said meeting with the mutual consent

of the parties. The Appellant was not a part of the decisionmaking process. In the said meeting as per clause (7), it was

decided that “M/s RPCL agreed that they will apply their full

efforts to complete the project so that it may be completed within

extended completion period, i.e., July’ 07, instead of going for

Arbitration/Court of Law.” Correspondences further reflect that

prior to demitting the office, Mr. R.P. Agarwal, CE, wrote three

letters, of which two were dated 05.04.2007 and one was dated

25.04.2007, requesting RPCL for implementation of the contract

as per the decision of JSEB. The said correspondence also does

not show any involvement of the Appellant. As alleged, the

agenda dated 08.06.2007 was prepared by the Appellant, wherein

the following instructions were required to be obtained:

“…….Hence instruction may be obtained on:

(i) Appointment of an arbitrator in light of the advice of the

AG Jharkhand.

(ii) Waiver of penalty in light of the advice of the AG,

Jharkhand, and

(iii) Putting the agenda for further time extension incorporating

the condition of approval of revised BQO which could not

be given till date.”

11. On perusal of the JSEB Board meeting dated 06.02.2007

and 07.02.2007, it is clear that extension was granted up to July

2007 instead of going in for arbitration or approaching the Court

of Law. The JSEB and its members were not inclined to cancel

the contract and the decision was taken by mutual consent.

Therefore, the instructions sought by the Appellant as per the

agenda dated 08.06.2007, were either based on the advice of the

learned AG of Jharkhand or in furtherance of the previous

decision of the Board. Later, it was directed that JSEB, Member

Technical may constitute a committee consisting of officers from

‘Technical’, ‘Finance’ and ‘Law’ to suggest the names to appoint

an Arbitrator, after approval of the Chairman. The Member

Technical proceeded in the matter of appointment of Arbitrator

and three names were proposed on 09.08.2007, out of which, Mr.

Ramayan Pandey, ExLaw Secretary, State of Jharkhand was

appointed as an arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an interim

award on 25.11.2007, in favour of RPCL.

12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparent

that at the time of taking a decision by the JSEB on 06.02.2007

and 07.02.2007, the Appellant was neither involved nor was part

in the proposal or the decisionmaking process. He had prepared

the proposed agenda for instructions on 08.06.2007, in

furtherance of clause (7) of the aforesaid Board meeting, and

based on the advice of the learned AG, State of Jharkhand in the

matter of appointment of an Arbitrator and waiver of penalty, as

suggested. Even after the proposed agenda for termination of the

contract dated 27.12.2006, prepared by the then CE Mr. R.P.

Agarwal, it was not acted upon because Member Technical on

19.01.2007, had put up a note “Please discuss”. Later, the Board

took a decision on 06.02.2007 and 07.02.2007. Thus, it is clear

that the question of termination of contract in the opinion of the

Board was dropped and the recourse to complete the work within

the extended time was agreed in place of going in for

arbitration/Court of Law. The same has also been observed by

the High Court in its order dated 02.05.2016, while granting bail

to the Appellant on merit. In the said facts, merely preparing a

subsequent agenda dated 08.06.2007, seeking instructions for

appointment of an Arbitrator would not bring the Appellant

within the purview of culpability for commission of the alleged

offences. This Court has reason to believe that the decisions, if

any, taken by the JSEB and other higher officials were after

perusal of the complete noting in the file. After implementation of

the said decision, arbitral proceedings were commenced and

award dated 25.11.2007 was passed. Thereafter, the agenda

regarding implementation of the award was put up before the

Chairman, Mr. B.M. Verma who vide noting dated 27.01.2008,

made a request to the AG to give legal opinion about the

maintainability and enforceability issues relating to the interim

award. The learned AG responded by letter dated 31.01.2008,

opining that the award did not suffer from any illegality and

should be implemented. Accordingly, the Board of JSEB

approved the interim arbitral award vide resolution dated

05.04.2008 and 07.04.2008. In the said meeting, Smt. Rajbala

Verma (then Finance Secretary to the State of Jharkhand) also

participated and duly approved the resolution.

13. The perusal of material indicates that because it was

difficult for the JSEB to implement the award due to financial

difficulty, a roving and fishing enquiry was conducted, in

consequence of which, Secretary, JSEB vide letter dated

30.07.2010 and Smt. Rajbala Verma (then Vigilance

Commissioner) vide letter dated 03.09.2010, requested the DGP,

Vigilance Bureau to register an FIR against the Appellant. We fail

to understand as to why the same person, who had approved the

implementation of award as a member of the Board, had later as

Vigilance Commissioner, recommended initiation of prosecution

against the Appellant, who had merely prepared the agenda for

appointment of an arbitrator and had nothing to do with the

approval of the award and payment of money. In view of the

aforesaid, if at all any culpability had to be assigned, it should

have been assigned after examining the role of senior authorities

who were involved in the decisionmaking process. Astonishingly,

most of the senior officials, who approved various decisions

regarding extension of time, appointment of arbitrator and

implementation of arbitration award and consequent payment to

RPCL have not been arrayed as accused. In our considered view,

primafacie there is nothing which affixes culpability or

constitutes commission of offence including mensrea on the part

of the Appellant. It seems that an attempt has been made to

implicate the Appellant for the decisions in which primafacie, he

did not have any role to play, nor do his acts establish any

culpability regarding the alleged offences.

14. If at all there were issues with respect to the maintainability

of the award due to the provisions of the contract, particularly as

per the contended negative covenant, the same should have been

highlighted by the learned AG, especially when his opinion was

expressly sought. We find it difficult to accept that the opinion of

the learned AG was prejudiced merely because he was not made

aware of the negative covenant pertaining to price variation by an

engineer of the JSEB who has limited exposure in the domain of

law. We have no hesitation in stating that AG being the highest

law officer of a State, is competent to advise the State on legal

matters after due diligence, taking into consideration all relevant

factors and material. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be said to

influence or impact the opinion of the learned AG which had

resulted in approval of JSEB to implement the award. Hence, in

our considered view, it cannot be inferred that the Appellant led

the AG and the JSEB to implement the award with fraudulent or

dishonest intention to cause loss to JSEB and benefit to RPCL.

15. On a perusal of the FIR, we find that it is alleged against

Umesh Kumar, Financial Controller – III and the present

Appellant, CE (APDRP), that they made payment of

Rs.4,89,24,788/ against the gross value of Rs. 7,89,84,826/, as

per the arbitral award without approval of the competent

authority. Mr. Umesh Kumar had filed quashment petition being

‘Cr. M.P. No. 2136/2015’ before the High Court wherein the

Court on the allegation of payment without approval of the

competent authority (as alleged against Appellant also) has

observed as under:

“1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal

of the records, I do find that nothing is there against the

petitioner with respect to appointment of M/s RPCL nor

anything is there in the matter of appointment of an

Arbitrator. Only when award was given by the Arbitrator, the

petitioner did make payment of the amount which had been

awarded not from the working fund but from the loan fund.

This has been taken by the Vigilance to be illegal as

according to it the payment should not have been made from

the existing loan amount, as the loan had never been taken

for the purpose of making payment of the amount awarded

by the Arbitrator. This accusation cannot be the subject

matter of the prosecution in absence of anything being placed

that there was restriction on the part of the authority of the

Board to make payment of the amount covered under the

award passed against the Board from the loan account. It is

opinion of the Vigilance not based on any circular or

guideline that the payment should have been made after

having a fresh loan from the Power Finance Corporation. It

be stated that the petitioner is to act according to his own

wisdom and not as per the wishes of others and if nothing is

there showing any culpability in the matter of payment of the

amount, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any

wrong.

2. Coming further, it be stated that the petitioner passed

release order with respect to payment of a sum of Rs.

4,89,24,788/ but that release order was passed without

having any approval of the Chairman though such post facto

approval according to the petitioner has been granted by the

Chairman not on the file but on separate sheet which

according to the Vigilance is bad but even if this irregularity

is there in the matter of payment of the said amount, his

culpability can only be found when something is more there

showing his connivance or conspiracy with the contractor

though the Vigilance has tried to establish that the file moved

so fast but that never indicates about the culpability of the

petitioner, as there may be conspiracy of other officials with

the contractor on account of which the file moved so fast.

Furthermore, it has never been the case of the vigilance that

the aforesaid payments were made without the materials

being supplied or short supplied.

3. Further, it be stated that the ingredients of the offence of

criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement

between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the

said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for

doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be

illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is

an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can

be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial

evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience

that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.

Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the

occurrence have to be considered to decide about the

complicity of the accused. Even, if some acts are proved to

have been committed, it must be clear that they were so

committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the

accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy.

Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the

guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are

incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other

words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have

been established on mere suspicion and surmises or

inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable

evidence. This proposition of law has been laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Central Bureau of

Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao {(2012) 9

SCC 512}. Here in the instant case, nothing appears to be

there for showing connivance or conspiracy except aforesaid

two facts which have been dealt with hereinabove regarding

payment of the amount to the contractor.”

16. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against

Umesh Kumar with the above said observations. Assailing the

same, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4062 of 2017, was

filed by the State of Jharkhand, which was dismissed by this

Court vide order dated 05.02.2020, after condoning the delay. As

per the FIR allegations, it is alleged that Umesh Kumar and the

present Appellant had made the payment of Rs.4,89,24,788/

against the gross value of Rs.7,89,84,826/ without approval of

the competent authority. In this regard, the allegation against the

Appellant is that he suggested that part payment of the arbitral

award may be made to RPCL from the working fund, on

refundable basis since there was no fund available in the Power

Finance Corporation Account. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the Appellant had made payment to the agency.

However, it can be inferred that the Appellant has suggested the

possible mode of payment in furtherance of the Board’s office

order no. 243 dated 16.03.2006, after passing of the arbitral

award which was required to be paid alongwith interest, but to

satisfy the award by noting, the said suggestion was made. In our

view, this itself is not sufficient to implicate the Appellant. In

addition thereto, it is most pertinent that even on such a

suggestion, the payments were not made from the working fund,

rather, part payment of the award was made from the loan taken

from Power Finance Corporation on the recommendation of

Umesh Kumar, against whom criminal proceedings have been

quashed as indicated hereinabove and the said order has not

been interfered with by this Court.

17. It is also worthwhile to mention that during the

investigation, no incriminating material or money was seized

from the house of the Appellant. Further, it is not a case where

allegations of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets have

been successfully found by prosecution against the Appellant. On

the contrary, when the Income Tax Department had assessed the

block income tax return for seven years, the Department

recorded a refund Rs.8843 to the Appellant after detailed

scrutiny of the records.

18. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the

charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be

gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it’s

judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be

satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was

possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of enquiry and has

to see whether any primafacie case against the accused is made

out or not. At the same time, the Court is also not expected to

mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the broad

probabilities of the case, weight of primafacie evidence,

documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. In this regard

the judgment of “Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal,

(1979) 3 SCC 4” can be profitably referred for ready reference.

Having due regard to the documents placed before us and in the

light of the submissions and discussion made above, we are of

the considered view that sufficient grounds casting a grave

suspicion on the Appellant, do not exist. It is observed that the

ingredients of alleged offences cannot be primafacie established

against the Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with

funds of JSEB nor he had fraudulently or dishonestly deceived

senior officials of the JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL or any

wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of illegal gratification or

disproportionate assets has been found against the Appellant.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that the High Court erred in refusing to exercise the

revisional powers vested in it under Sections 397 and 401 of the

Cr.P.C. and dismissing the criminal revision preferred by the

Appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case as

discussed, the inescapable conclusion that can be drawn in this

case that ingredients of the alleged offences are not primafacie

made out against the Appellant. Therefore, we deem it fit to allow

the instant appeal and setaside the impugned order.

Consequently, the Appellant is discharged in the criminal

proceedings arising out of Special Case No.02 of 2011.

……………………..CJI.

[N.V. Ramana]

………………………..J.

[J.K. Maheshwari]

………………………..J.

[Hima Kohli]

New Delhi;

August 24, 2022

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

- March 04, 2020

Search This Blog

Indian Constitution

PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA VS STATE OF JHARKHAND

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India