Dr. Jagannath Mishra vs State of Jharkhand

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—In these applications the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by Special Judge CBI in special Case No. 47/96 (arising out of R.C. Case No. 47(A)/96), Special Case No. 65/96 (arising out of R.C. Case No. 64(A)/96), Special Case No. 39/96 (arising out of R.C. Case No. 38(A)/96) and Special Case No. 68/96 (arising out of R.C. Case No. 68(A)/96), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for his discharge has been rejected.

The aforesaid cases were registered by the CBI relating to fraudulent withdrawal of money from different Districts'' Treasury of the united State of Bihar by different persons/public servants, suppliers and dealers. The petitioner is also named in the FIR.

Mr. M.S. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that out of these cases sanction for prosecution was taken only in three cases but no sanction was obtained in respect of one case being R.C. Case No. 64(A)/96. Hence framing of charge is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further drawn my attention to the comparative chart showing the allegation so far the petitioner is concerned and submitted that continuance of separate prosecution against the petitioner is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel further submitted that Special Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in not amalgamating all the cases for trial.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, submitted that trial has already commenced much before and in all these four cases more khan 150 witnesses have been examined in each case. Learned Counsel further submitted that similar prayer was made in another Special Case No. 22/96 for the discharge of the petitioner, which was rejected and finally the application filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging the said order in Cr.Misc. No. 9617/2000 has been dismissed.

From perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.Misc. No. 9617/2000 it appears that the Bench has considered all the points which have been raised here and finally dismissed the application.

In the instant case, as noticed above, 204 witnesses have been examined in R.C. Case No. 47/96, 155 witnesses have been examined in R.C. Case No. 68/96, 191 witnesses have been examined in R.C. Case No. 38/96 and 137 witnesses have been examined in R.C. Case No. 64/96. In my view, these cases have squarely covered by the finding recorded by the Division Bench in the aforementioned case. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge.

There is no merit in these applications, which are, accordingly, dismissed.