Kapil Deo Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1027586
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnSep-09-2013
AppellantKapil Deo Singh
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr.m.p. no.2094 of 2012 kapil deo singh ................................petitioner versus state of jharkhand through vigilance...opposite party coram: honble mr. justice r.r.prasad for the petitioner: mr.v.k.tiwary for the state : mr. shailesh 5 / 9.9.13. mr.tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being prosecuted for commission of the offences of cheating, forgery etc. and also under section 13(1) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act on the allegation that the petitioner a teacher though was not entitled to get higher pay scale got his pay scale fixed in higher scale with the connivance of the then deputy superintendent of education, pakur but the case never happens to be a case either of cheating or forgery as the salary of the petitioner was fixed on account of the order passed by the hon'ble patna high court. in the fitness of thing, it would be desirable that the issue relating to insufficiency of the material and the point taken be raised before the trial court at the time of discharge so that the trial court may consider it and pass an order in accordance with law. thus, this application stands disposed of. (r.r. prasad, j.) nd/
Judgment:

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.2094 of 2012 Kapil Deo Singh ................................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand through Vigilance...Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner: Mr.V.K.Tiwary For the State : Mr. Shailesh 5 / 9.9.13. Mr.Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being prosecuted for commission of the offences of cheating, forgery etc. and also under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that the petitioner a teacher though was not entitled to get higher pay scale got his pay scale fixed in higher scale with the connivance of the then Deputy Superintendent of Education, Pakur but the case never happens to be a case either of cheating or forgery as the salary of the petitioner was fixed on account of the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court. In the fitness of thing, it would be desirable that the issue relating to insufficiency of the material and the point taken be raised before the trial court at the time of discharge so that the trial court may consider it and pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, this application stands disposed of. (R.R. Prasad, J.) ND/