Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Superintendent of Police, Cbi (Ahd)

Sanjay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand Through the Superintendent of Police, Cbi (Ahd)

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Jul 11, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/520424

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/520424
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: D.K. Sinha, J.
Decided On: Jul 11, 2006
Case Number: Cri. M.P. No. 22 of 2006
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Peanl Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjay Kumar

Advocate A. Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand Through the Superintendent of Police, Cbi (Ahd)

Advocate Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Peanl Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471
Cases Referred: M.R. Pratap v. V.M. Muthu Krishnan
Reported In: [2006(4)JCR171(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - as a matter of fact, the cbi had implicated firm medivet and its partners as accused in so far as the allegations of fake supplies giving rise to 'fodder scam'.similarly, cbi failed to bring any material of nexus between the petitioner and medivet rather he has been implicated summarily on mere assumption and presumption though the partners of the said firm have already been charge-sheeted. muthu krishnan reported in 1994crilj628 held that every person who was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of alleged offence as well as the company shall be proceeded against the punished accordingly......court below framed the charges against the petitioner in a mechanical manner without even taking into account of the material on the record except on the presumption about the active involvement of the petitioner in the firm medivet. as a matter of fact, the cbi had implicated firm medivet and its partners as accused in so far as the allegations of fake supplies giving rise to 'fodder scam'. similarly, cbi failed to bring any material of nexus between the petitioner and medivet rather he has been implicated summarily on mere assumption and presumption though the partners of the said firm have already been charge-sheeted.5. learned counsel further submitted that the hon'ble supreme court of india in m.r. pratap v. v.m. muthu krishnan reported in : 1994 crilj628 held that every person who was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of alleged offence as well as the company shall be proceeded against the punished accordingly. in this manner the person connected with the affairs of the company apart from the managing director who had signed the return are liable to be proceeded. but in the present case the petitioner is in no manner concerned hence his prosecution is liable to be quashed.6. learned counsel pointed out before the court that m/s medivet is a partnership firm consisting of sarad kumar, nirmala prasad and anita prasad as its partners. the petitioner is innocent and has been maliciously dragged in the present case who has got no concern nearly or remotely with m/s medivet or its partners in its business and therefore, the charge framed against him be quashed.7. on the other hand, mr. rajesh kumar, learned counsel for the cbi strongly opposed the contention and submitted that after framing of charge on 27.6.2003 as many as 111 witnesses have already been produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution and trial is in advanced stage. the charge is very specific against the petitioner, which can be.....

Full Judgment

D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner herein has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing the charge framed against him on 27.6.2003 in R.C. Case No. 66(A)/96 by Shri P.R. Das, Special Judge-IV, CBI, AHD Cases, Ranchi under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 465, IPC.

2. The First Information Report was lodged by the CBI on 5.7.1996 with respect to the famous 'Fodder Scam' wherein, the father of the petitioner Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad was made named accused (An-nexure-1) in relation to excess withdrawal and expenditure in the Animal Husbandry Department during the period 1977 to 1996.

3. Learned Counsel submitted that the name of the petitioner was conspicuously absent in the First Information Report and there was no whisper about his complicity in the alleged 'Fodder Scam'. However, after investigation the CBI submitted charge-sheet on 26.1.2000 and his name was figured at Sl. No. 48 therein with the allegation at page 28 that he had actively assisted the firm 'Medivet'. The petitioner was neither a partner nor in any manner connected with the conduct of business of the Firm Medivet. The petitioner had neither signed the cheque nor even a voucher or made any purchase on behalf of the said Firm and therefore, it is beyond apprehension as to how without any evidence or material suggesting participation in the business of Medivet, the charge-sheet was filed against him alleging his active assistance. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was in Banglore, nothing to do with the Firm and his accusation is devoid of any material simplicitor.

4. Advancing his argument learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court below framed the charges against the petitioner in a mechanical manner without even taking into account of the material on the record except on the presumption about the active involvement of the petitioner in the Firm Medivet. As a matter of fact, the CBI had implicated Firm Medivet and its partners as accused in so far as the allegations of fake supplies giving rise to 'Fodder Scam'. Similarly, CBI failed to bring any material of nexus between the petitioner and Medivet rather he has been implicated summarily on mere assumption and presumption though the partners of the said firm have already been charge-sheeted.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.R. Pratap v. V.M. Muthu Krishnan reported in : 1994 CriLJ628 held that every person who was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of alleged offence as well as the company shall be proceeded against the punished accordingly. In this manner the person connected with the affairs of the company apart from the Managing Director who had signed the return are liable to be proceeded. But in the present case the petitioner is in no manner concerned hence his prosecution is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned Counsel pointed out before the Court that M/s Medivet is a partnership firm consisting of Sarad Kumar, Nirmala Prasad and Anita Prasad as its partners. The petitioner is innocent and has been maliciously dragged in the present case who has got no concern nearly or remotely with M/s Medivet or its partners in its business and therefore, the charge framed against him be quashed.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the CBI strongly opposed the contention and submitted that after framing of charge on 27.6.2003 as many as 111 witnesses have already been produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution and trial is in advanced stage. The charge is very specific against the petitioner, which can be evident from the perusal of Annexure-2, based upon materials in the case diary and therefore, it does not require interference of this Court in exercise of inherent power.

8. I have carefully perused the charge framed against the petitioner on 27.6.2003 (Annexure-2) and find that the charges in the relevant sections of IPC are specific and the burden of proof is saddled upon the CBI. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the prosecution has examined altogether 111 witnesses and I find no ground made out on behalf of the petitioner to interfere with the charges already framed against the petitioner herein in exercise of Section 482, Cr PC.

9. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Sanjay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand Through the Superintendent... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge D.K. Sinha, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indi...

Criminal