Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1908 of 2015 Shailendra Kumar Gupta …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioners :Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the State :A.P.P. …..... 10/Dated: 08/11/2017 1. The petitionerShailendra Kumar Gupta is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 105 of 2015 for the offence under sections 406, 409, 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Court.
2. This case has been lodged on the basis of written report of one Luis Toppo, District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh alleging therein that the petitionerShailendra Kumar Gupta is the director of Aditya Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd, Morangi, Hazaribagh and has embezzled government money i.e Rs. 10,48,84,437.50/.
3. The instant case i.e Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 105 of 2015 has been lodged on 06.01.2015 and the Money Suit no. 14/2014 has been filed before the court of Senior Civil Judge Ist, Hazaribagh on 31.10.2014. It appears that the aforesaid money suit has been filed much prior to lodging of this case . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that much prior to lodging of this case, petitioner has filed a Money Suit No. 14 of 2014 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hazaribagh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that written statement has not been filed as per Order VIII Rule 1 C.PC and the matter was listed on 28.07.2017 and it was adjourned for three months and the orders were written by the Bench Clerk and the learned court below has 2 completely lost control of the suit and order was passed mechanically. It was further submitted that the F.I.R has been lodged after lodging of the aforesaid money suit. 6. Further, it has been submitted that the District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh who is respondent no. 3 in money suit is informant of this case and to save his skin, this case has been lodged against the petitioner. It was submitted specifically that there is dispute regarding payment of money in which Section 73 of Contract Act is attracted and no criminality in the matter is attracted and without adjudicating the money suit of the petitioner, criminal case has been lodged. So, taking all these facts the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counteraffidavit and produced case diary. From perusal of para 13, it appears that I.O has recorded the statement of the informant.Luice Toppo, District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh who has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated that the petitioner is the Director of the Aditya Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd, Morangi, Hazaribagh and the informant has purchased paddy from six different PACS and as per the agreement with Aditya Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd, Morangi, Hazaribag, the paddy was to be supplied to CMRFCI, but the said Rice Mill had not made available 83,907.55 quintal paddy to CMRFCI. The value of aforesaid paddy was Rs. 10,48,84,437.50 . Further, it has been recorded that for realization of the amount, a meeting was convened by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.08.2014 and 11.09.2014 which is attended by the owner of Rice Mill and Deputy Commissioner has also submitted letter no. 294 dated 01.07.2014 and letter no.519 dated 16.10.2014 and have directed the petitioner to deposit the value of rice, but the petitioner had not deposited any of the amount. 3 The petitioner has also not followed the direction given by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. Further, it has been stated that as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Government of Jharkhand had also sent two letters to the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid amount, but inspite of that he had not deposited a single penny, hence, the dishonest criminal intention to the petitioner of Aditya Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd, Morangi, Hazaribag is apparent as he along with the owner of Mills had swallowed the government money to the tune of Rs. 10,48,84,437.50.
8. Further, in para 50, the I.O has recorded the statement of one Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav, the Chairman of PACS Churchu. In para 51, I.O has recorded the statement of witness Akhlesh Kumar, Chairman of PACS, Hesalong who has stated that for the year 201213, after procuring paddy, he has sent the paddy in the Rice Mill of the petitioner for converting into rice.
9. Similar statement has been given in para 70 & 71 of the case diary by the witness Rajendra Prasad (Chairman of PACS) and Jitendra Kuamrthe Manager of Aditya Rice Mill who has given the same statement.
10. In para 90 of the case diary, I.O has recorded the statement of Islam Khan, who has stated that he was working as supervisor in the Aditya Rice Mill, Morangi since five years. This witness has stated similar fact that as per agreement, the truck was made available in the rice mill and when the vehicle loaded with rice was sent to the F.C.I, the vehicles were made stand there for 34 days and in this regard, letters were sent to the Deputy Commissioner, District Supply Officer, District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh, but no order was passed within time for which rice was left in huge quantity in the mill. Further, it has been stated that a case has been lodged by one Sri Prakash Kumar, Director. 11. In para 101 of the case diary, District Cooperative Officer, 4 description of paddy has been given which was made available by the Chairmans of PACS.
12. In para 155 of the case diary, the I.O has verified the aforesaid agreement between Aditya Rice Mill of Vishnugarh PACS. In para 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 of the case diary, there is also agreement between the Aditya Rice Mill and different Cooperative Societies In para 165 of the case diary, I.O has recorded the statement of Sri Shailendra Kumar Guptapetitioner, who has stated that he was the director of Aditya Rice Mill. Further, he has stated that an agreement was executed between Aditya Rice Mill and the State Government for milling the paddy. He has stated that as far agreement it has been agreed that the paddy which will be made available by the PACS in the Mill, 68 % rice after milling of the said rice will be loaded in the vehicle which was made available by the Chairman of the PACS in the premises of Mill. Further, it has been stated that the vehicle loaded with rice used to stand in the F.C.I godown, Hazaribagh for 2 to 7 days on the plea that there is no space in the godown and in this regard, letter was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, District Supply Officer and District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh, but the problem was not sort out.
13. In para 168 of the case diary, I.O has collected letter which was sent by District Supply Officer addressed to Regional Manager, F.C.I, Dhanbad regarding the problem with regard to refusal of rice by the F.C.I.
14. In para 169 of the case diary, I.O has collected the letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazariabgh addressed to the Regional Manager, F.C.I, Dhanbad with regard to make the rice accepted in the godown.
15. In para 170 of the case diary, I.O has collected letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazariabg addressed to the Secretary, Food, Civil Supply. 5 16. In para 182 of the case diary, this fact has been recorded by the I.O that a meeting was organized under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 04.12.2013 with regard to acceptance of rice and C.M.R. The District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh has disclosed that for the year 201213 total 5,05,917,10 quintals of paddy was purchased. Further, it has been disclosed that only 84,000.00 quintal rice has been sent to CMR, C.W.C, Hazaribagh. All the owners of the rice mills disclosed that C.W.C is not accepting the huge quantity of C.M.R. Representative of Regional Manager, F.C.I, Dhanbad has disclosed that there is space for acceptance of 4,000/ quintal in C.W.C, but about 12,000/ quintals food grains is made available and due to lack of space, C.M.R is not accepted. 17. That, on 30.08.2017, report was called from the concerned trial court on the following points in Money Suit No. 14/2014. (a) Whether the court while passing the aforesaid orders as referred herein above has taken into consideration the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. (b) Under what circumstances, three months' time was given in this case. (c) Whether the order was dictated by the learned Sr. Civil Judge himself or was recorded by the office clerk/Court Master/Peskar. Further, vide order dated 18.09.2017, explanation was called from the trial court as to why required report has not been submitted and further under order dated 03.10.2017, Joint Registrar (Judicial) was directed to hold enquiry as to when letter dated 138 dated 16.09.2017 was received, date of receipt of the said letter and when it was transmitted to the section and to submit report.
18. Perused the office note dated 07.11.2017 which reveals that enquiry report of Joint Registrar (Judicial) has been received in a sealed cover. From perusal of enquiry report dated 01.11.2017 submitted by Joint Registrar (Judicial), it reveals that Sri Sanjay Kumar Mali, working as FAX 6 operator submitted that Letter no. 138 dated 16.09.2017 from the Court of Civil Judge, Hazaribag was received in this Court through FAX on 16.09.2017 at 3.51 p.m and on the same day, it was sent to the chamber of A.R. (Judicial) for its onward transmission to the concerned section. Sri Asit Prasad, Dealing Assistant posted in the Chamber of A.R. (Judicial) has submitted that the aforesaid letter was received from the FAX operator at late hours on 16.09.2017 about 5.00 p.m and it was sent to the Cr. Receiving Section on 18.09.2017 as 17.09.2017 being Sunday was a holiday. The Dealing Assistant Sri Sumit Samad of Cr. Receiving Section received the same on 18.09.2017 (copy of receiving is kept at flag A). Further, it has been mentioned that enquiry was made from Sri Sumit Samad, Dealing Assistant, Cr. Receiving Section, he has submitted that letter no. 138 dated 16.09.2017 was received in the Cr. Receiving Section through the forward diary from the chamber of the A.R. (Judicial) on 18.09.2017 and on the same day, it was transmitted to the B.A./A.B.A Section and Dealing Assistant Sri Jitendra Jha of B.A./A.B.A. Section received the same on 18.09.2017 (copy of receiving is kept at flag B). Thus from perusal of forward register, it appears that letter no. 138 dated 16.09.2017 was received in the B.A./A.B.A. Section on 18.09.2017. It appears that on 18.09.2017, the said letter and report was not placed and order was passed and then in the evening it was pointed out that the report has been received. Let the aforesaid report of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) be kept on record. Further, it appears that in terms of order dated 03.10.2017 a supplementary report dated 07.11.2017 has been received which reveals that the Money Suit No. 14/14 is fixed for 07.11.2017 for mediation and conciliation.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary 7 affidavit on 21.08.2017 brining on record the entire ordersheets of the Money Suit No. 14 of 2014.
20. From perusal of report dated 16.09.2017 with regard to A.B.A. No. 1908/2015 dated 30.08.2017 corresponding to Money Suit No. 14/14 submitted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) cumJ.M. Ist Class, Hazaribagh and the entire ordersheet brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit revealed that the above referred orders has been passed by the predecessors court, but provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has not been fully taken into consideration and this record has been transferred on 24.06.2016. The next date is fixed for 07.11.2017 for mediation and conciliation. Further from perusal of Money Suit No. 14/2014, it appears that the said suit has been filed by M/s Aditya Rice Mill (P) Ltd, Morangi through its Director namely Prakash Kumar(plaintiff) with the following prayers: “(a)That after adjudication a decree for Rs. 3,58,37,779.06 described in Schedule A be passed, directing the defendants to pay the amount to the Plaintiff with interest of Rs. 11% within 30 days from the day of the decree failing which the plaintiff will be entitled to realize the same from defendants through the process of the Court. (b) That it be also declared that the defendants are not entitled to asks to realize money for the paddy as for agreement. (c) That by issuance of payment injunction, the defendants NO. 1 to 5 be from going upon the rice mill and to take coercive steps against the plaintiff. 8 (d) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. (e) That the other relief or reliefs as plaintiffs to which the plaintiff is found entitled to”.
21. Further, ordersheet reveals that the Money Suit No. 14 of 2014 has been filed by M/s Aditya Rice Mill (P) Ltd. whose director is Mr. Prakash Kumar in which there are 12 defendants, out of which, defendant no. 1 is State of Jharkhand, defendant no. 2 is Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, defendant no. 3 is District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh, Defendant no. 4 is District Supply Officer, Hazaribagh, Defendant no. 5 is Jharkhand State Food Corporation and rest of the defendants ie. 6 to 12 are different PACS, situated in Hazaribagh District. The petitionerShailendra Kumar Gupta is one of the directors of the Mill, from the perusal of the agreement arrived at between M/s Aditya Rice Mill (P) Ltd and Sitagarh PACS Limited.
22. From ordersheets passed in Money Suit No. 14 of 2014, it reveals that on 09.03.2015, defendant nos. 6 to 12 have appeared through their counsels and prayed for time for filing written statement and the order dated 08.09.2015 reveals that defendant no. 3District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh is represented by Government pleader and has filed written statement. Further order dated 18.04.2016 reveals that no pairvi was made on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant nos 1 and 2 have appeared through G.P and filed vakalatnama.
23. Further order dated 08.05.2015, it reveals that defendant nos. 1 to 5 and defendants nos. 6 to 12, all have appeared. Ordersheet further reveals that on 24.06.2016, the case was transferred to the Court of learned Sr. Civil Judge II, Hazaribagh. Further, ordersheet dated 21.06.2017 reveals that defendant nos. 3 and 12 have filed hazari. The said ordersheet further reveals that 9 defendant nos. 1 and 2 has not filed their written statement in terms of the provisions as contained in Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C and as such, they have been debarred from filing written statement and it further reveals that notice was validly served upon the defendant nos. 4 and 5. As per the report of the JudgeinCharge, they failed to appear and the matter was fixed for exparte against defendant nos. 4 and 5. 24. Further ordersheet reveals that the matter was fixed for 28.07.2017 and three months' time was given and the matter was directed to be listed on 07.11.2017. Written statement filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 6 to 12 is kept on record. It further appears that defendant no. 3District Cooperative Officer has also filed written statement.
25. Further, from perusal of the ordersheet it appears that respondent no. 1 through Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and the respondent no. 2 appeared through G.P, but has not filed their written statement. Similarly notice has been validly served to the District Supply Officer, Hazaribag, respondent no. 4 and Jharkhand State Food Corporation, respondent no. 5 and the matter was fixed for exparte and under order dated 28.07.2017 three months' adjournment was given and the matter was listed for 07.11.2017 and all these orders have been written by the Bench Clerk. It appears that the trial court has completely lost control of the suit and order was passed mechanically.
26. It is relevant to note here the Jharkahnd High Court Case Flow Management in the Subordinate Courts Rule, 2006 which is reproduced as under: “ In exercise of of the power conferred by Part X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 *5 of 1908) the High Court of Jharkhand hereby makes the following Rules with regard to Case Flow Management in the Subordinate Courts of the State. 1. Division of Civil Suits and Appeals into tracks. 1. Based on the nature of dispute, the quantum of evidence to be 10 recorded and the time likely to be taken for the completion of suits the suits shall be channeled into different tracks. Track 1 may include suits for maintenance, divorce and child custody and visitation rights, grant of letter of administration and succession certificate and simple suits for rent or for eviction (upon notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act) Track 2 may consist of money suits and suits based solely on negotiable instruments. Track 3 may include suits concerning partition and like property matters. Track 4 may relate to other matters. All efforts shall be taken to complete the suits in Track 1 within a period of 9 months. Track 2 within 12 months and suits in Tracks 3 and 4 within 24 months. This categorization is illustrative and it will be for the High Court to make appropriate categorization. It will be for the Judge concerned to make an appropriate assessment as to which track any case can be assigned to. 2. Once in a month, the Registry/administrative staff of each Corut will prepare a report as to the stage and progress of cases which are proposed to be listed in the next month and place the report before the Court. When the matters are listed on each day, the Judge, concerned may take such, decision as he may deem fit in the presence of counsels/parties in regard to each case for removing any obstacles in service of summons, completion of pleadings etc with a view to make the case ready for disposal. 3. The judge referred to clause (2) above, may shift a case from one track to another, depending upon the completely and other circumstances of the case. 4. Where computerization is available, the monthly data will be fed into the computer in such a manner that the Judge referred to clause (2) above will be able to ascertain the position and the stage of every case to every track. From the computer screen. Over a period all cases pending in his court will be covered. Where computerization is not available, the monitoring must be done manually. 5. The Judge referred to to clause (2) above, shall monitor and control the flow or progress of every case, either from the compute or 11 from the register or date placed before him in the above manner or in some other manner he may innovate. II. Original Suit. (1) Fixation of time limits while issuing notice(a) Wherever notice is issued in a suit, the notice should indicate that the Code prescribes a maximum of 30 days for filing written statement (which for special reasons may be extended up to 90 days) and therefore, the defendants may prepare the written statement expeditiously and that the matter will be listed for that purpose on the expiry of eight weeks from the date of issue of notice (so that it can be definite date). After the written statement is filed within six weeks of receipt of the written statement. If there are more than one defendants, each one of the defendants should comply with this requirement within the time limit. (b) The notice referred to in clause (a) shall be accompanied by a complete copy of the plaint and all its annexures/ enclosures and copies of the interlocutory application, if any. (c) If interlocutory applications are filed along with plaint, and if an ex parte interim order is not passed the Court is desirous of hearing the respondent, it may, while sending the notice along with the plaint, fix an earlier date for the hearing of the application (than the date for filing written statement depending upon the urgency for interim relief.
2. Service of summons/notice and completion of pleadings(a) Summons may be served as indicated in clause (3) of Rule 9, Order V. (b) In the case of service of summons by the plaintiff or a courier where a return is filed that the defendant has refused notice, the return will be accompanied by an undertaking that the plaintiff or the courier, as the case may be, is aware that if the return is found to be false, he can be punished for perjury or summarily dealt with for contempt of Court for abuse of the provisions of the Code. Where the plaintiff comes forward with a return of 'refusal', the provisions of Order IXA. Rule 4 will be followed by reissue of summons through Court. (c) If it has not been possible to effect service of summons under 12 Rule 9, Order V, the provisions of Rule 17, Order V shall apply and the plaintiff shall within 7 days from the date of its inaibility to serve the summons to request the Court to permit substituted service. The dates for filing the written statement and replication, if any, shall accordingly stand extended. 3. Calling of cases (hazri or call work for rollcall) The present practice of the Court Master or Bench Clerk calling all the cases listed on a particular day at the beginning of the day in order to confirm whether counsel are ready, whether parties are present or whether various steps to the suit or proceeding have been taken is consuming a lot of time of the Court, sometime almost two hours of the best part of the day when the Judge to fresh. After such work, the Court is left with very limited time to deal with cases listed before it. Formal listing should be first before a nominated senior officer of the Registry. One or two days before the listing in Court. He may give dated in routine matters for compliance with earlier orders of the Court. Cases will be listed before the Court only where an order of the Court is necessary or where an order prescribing the consequences of default or where a peremptory order or an order as to costs is required to be passed on the judicial side. Cases which have to be adjourned as a matter of routine for taking steps in the suit or proceeding should not be unnecessarily listed before the Court. Where parties/ counsel are not attending before the Court officer or the defiant or negligent, their cases may be placed before the Court . Listing of cases on any day before a Court should be based on a reasonable estimate of time and number of cases that can be disposed of by the Court in a particular day. The Courts shall, therefore, dispense with the practice of calling all the cases listed adjourned to any particular day. Cases will be first listed before a nominated senior officer of the Court, nominated for the purpose. 4. Procedure on the grant of interim orders(a) If an interim order is granted at the first hearing by the Court, the defendants would have the option of moving appropriate applications for vacating the interim order even before the returnable date indicated to the notice and if such an application is filed, it shall be listed as soon as possible even before the returnable date. 13 (b) If the Court passes an ad interim ex parte order in an interlocutory application and the reply by the defendants is filed, and if, thereafter, the plaintiff fails to file the rejoinder (if any) without good reasons for the delay, the Court has to consider whether the stay or interim order passed by the Court should be vacated and shall list the case with that purpose. This is meant to prevent parties taking adjournment with a view to have undue benefit of the ad interim orders. The plaintiff may, if he so chooses, also waive his right to file a rejoinder. A communication of option by the plaintiff and to file a rejoinder, made to the Registry will be deemed to be the completion of pleadings in the interlocutory application.
5. Referred to alternative dispute resolution and denial of documents by the parties the suit shall be listed before the Corut for examination of parties under Order X of the Civil Procedure Code. A joint statement of admitted facts shall be filed before the said date). The Court shall thereafter, follow the procedure prescribed under the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2002. 6. Procedure of the failure of alternative dispute resolution On the filing of report by the mediator under the Mediation Rules that efforts at mediation have failed, or a report by the conciliator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or a report of no settlement in the Lok Adalat under the provision of the Legal services Authorities Act, 1987 the suit shall be listed before the Registry within a period of 14 days. At the said hearing beef the Registry, all the parties shall submit the draft issues proposed by them. The suit shall be listed before the Court within 14 days thereafter for framing of issues. When the suit is listed after failure of the attempts of conciliation, arbitration or the Lok Adalat, the Judge may merely inquire whether it is still possible for the parties to resolve the dispute. This should invariably be done by the Judge at the first hearing when the matter comes back on failure of conciliation, mediation or Lok Adalat. If the parties are not keen about settlement, the Court shall frame the issues and direct the plaintiff to start examining his witnesses. 14 The procedure of each witness filing his examinationinchief will continue, one after the other. After completion of evidence on the plaintiffs side, the defendants shall lead evidence likewise, witness after witness, the chiefexamination of each witness being by affidavit and the witness being then crossexamined or reexamined. The parties shall keep the affidavit in chief examination ready whenever the witness's examination is taken up. As far as possible, evidence must be taken up day by day as started in clause (a) of the proviso to Rule 2 Order XVII. The parties shall also indicate the likely duration for the evidence to be completed, and for the arguments to be thereafter heard. The Judge shall ascertain the availability of time of the Court and will list the matter for trial on a date when the trial can go on from day to day and conclude the evidence. The possibility of further negotiation and settlement should be kept open and if such a settlement takes place, it should be open to the parties to move the Registry for getting the matter listed at an earlier date for disposal. 7. Referred to the Commissioner for recording of evidence (a) The High Court shall conduct an examination on the subjects of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Evidence Act, 1872. Only those advocates who have passed an examination conducted by the High Court on the subjects of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Evidence Act, 1872, shall be appointed as Commissioners for recording evidence. They shall be ranked according to the marks secured by them. (b) It is not necessary that in every case the Court should appoint a Commissioner for recording evidence. Only if the recording of evidence is likely to take a long time, or there are any other special grounds, should the Court consider appointing a Commissioner for recording the evidence. The court should direct that the matter be listed for arguments fifteen days after the Commissioner files his report with the evidence. The Court may initially file a specific period for the completion of the recording of the evidence by the Commissioner and direct the matter to be listed on the date of expiry, so that the Court may know whether the parties are cooperating with the Commissioner and 15 whether the recording of evidence is getting unnecessarily prolonged. (c) The Commissioners should file an undertaking in the Court upon their appointment that they will keep the records handed over to them and those that may be filed before them, safe and shall not allow any party to inspect them in the absence of the opposite party/counsel. If there is delay of more than one month in the date fixed for recording evidence. It is advisable for them to return the file to the Court and take it back on the eve of the adjourned date.
8. CostsSo far as awarding of costs at the time of judgment is concerned, awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory in as much as the liberal attitude of the Courts in directing the parties to bear their own costs had led parties to file a number of frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous and unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably follow the event. Where a party succeeds ultimately on one issue or point but loses on a number of other issues or points which were unnecessarily raised, costs must to appropriately appropriated. Special reasons must be assigned if costs arre not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to rules in force. If any of the parties has unreasonably protracted the proceedings, the Judge should consider exercising discretion to impose exemplary costs after taking into account the expense incurred for the purpose of attendance on the adjourned dates. 9. Proceedings for perjuryIf the trial Judge, while delivering the judgment is of the view that any of the parties or witnesses have willfuly and deliberately uttered blatant falsehood, he shall consider (at least in some grave cases) whether it is a fit case, where prosecution should be initiated for perjury and order prosecution accordingly. 10. Adjournments The amendments to the Code have restricted the number of adjournments to three in the course of hearing of the suit, on reasonable cause being shown. When a suit is listed before a Court and any party seeks adjournment, the Court shall have to verify whether the party is seeking adjournment due to circumstances beyond the control of the party, as required by clause 16 (b) of the proviso to Rule 2 (sic I) Order XVII. The Court shall impose costs as specified in Rule 2 (sic 1) Order XVII. 11. Miscellaneous applicationsThe proceedings in a suit shall not be stayed merely because of the filing of miscellaneous application in the course of suit unless the Court in its discretion expressly things it necessary to stay the proceedings in the suit.”
27. Further, it has been stated that an application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner regrading the refusal of the officer of the F.C.I to accept rice.
28. It has been disclosed by the District Cooperative Officer that demand of Rs. 10,49,98,285.46/ has been sent to the F.C.I, Dhanbad for transshipment of rice to the godown of the Hazaribagh but the same has not been received. Further, from perusal of case diary it appears that the investigation is still going on.
29. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the aforesaid money suit has been filed much prior to lodging of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail with cost.
30. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below latest by 18.12.2017 and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 105 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. 31. The petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 2,00,000/ before the Secretary/ President, District Bar Association, Civil Court, Hazaribagh latest 17 by 16.12.2017 and file receipt of the deposition of aforesaid amount before the trial court on the date of his surrender. The aforesaid amount will be used only for welfare of the learned member of Bar Association of Hazaribagh District Court. 32. Further the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Investigation and he will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence is required by the the I.O. 33. Further, if the I.O wants to record the further statement of the petitioner, he will give 72 hours notice to the petitioner fixing date, time and place and thereafter, the petitioner will appear before the I.O on the date fixed. 34. The petitioner will furnish his photo copy of Aadhar Card and cell number before the trial court on the date of his surrender. Thereafter the I.O will file application before the trial court for availability of the cell number of the petitioner.
35. This case relates to proceeding of expeditious disposal of money suits before the District Courts, so attention is drawn to this Court of the provision of Jharkhand High Court Case Management in the Subordinate Courts Rule, 2006 and the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C and Section 89 of C.P.C for expeditious disposal of money claims which has been reflected from the entire ordersheet of the trial court in Money Suit No. 14/2014 which reflects that the entire ordersheet in the the said Money Suit has been written by the Bench Clerk. Let a copy of this order be sent to Member Secretary, State Courts Management System to place the matter before the Hon'ble Committee with request to collect figures of the money suits pending in the Subordinate Courts in the State of Jharkhand for evolving policy for early disposal of those suits under the provision of C.P.C and the Jharkhand High Court Case 18 Flow Management in the Subordinate Courts Rule, 2006. The Member Secretary, State Courts Management System is directed to submit report to this court within 24 weeks. Let a copy of this order along with enquiry report of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) be sent to the learned Registrar General of this Court to place the same before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice with request to take necessary action against Sri Asit Prasad, Dealing Assistant. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Registrar General of this Court to place the same before Hon'ble Zonal Judge of Hazaribagh Judgeship with request to record in the A.C.R of Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division)cumJ.M. Ist Class, Hazaribagh that he lacks knowledge of law and procedure and lacks effective control over his court and office staff. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court, court of Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division)cumJ.M. Ist Class, Hazaribagh as well as to the Secretary, District Bar Association, Civil Court, Hazaribagh through FAX and Special Messenger at the cost of the Registry and a copy of this order be also handed over to the learned A.P.P and to Nodle Officer for its transmission to the Investigation Officer. Satyarthi/ (Anant Bijay Singh, J.)