Since, both he revision applications arising out of the same order, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Criminal Revision No. 800 of 2012, was initially filed for quashing of the order dated 03/09/2012, passed in Special Case No. 69/2010 (Vigilance P.S Case No. 52 of 2010), whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge was rejected after holding that there are sufficient materials to frame charges under Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, during pendency of this application, when the charges were framed, under the aforesaid offences that order dated 21/11/2012, was also challenged by way of interlocutory application.

So far as Criminal Revision No. 1029/2012 is concerned, it is directed against the order dated 21/11/2012, whereby and whereunder charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the first information report, is that when an Income Tax raid was laid in the house of one Raj Kumar Sinha, the then Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and also at other places, several documents were seized. Those documents alongwith the statements made by one Subodh Kumar Dubey, were made available to the Department of Vigilance. Upon scrutinizing those materials, it was found that said R.K Sinha, while was posted as Members Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, allowed those crusher machines, which were being run illegally to operate on accepting illegal gratification. One Subodh Kumar Dubey, who was acting as an agent of R.K Sinha, was instrumental in getting NOC issued by R.K Sinha illegally. Said Subodh Kumar Dubey in course of his interrogation made by Income Tax Authority, did accept that he had worked for Madhu Koda in the Parliamentary Election. In that course, one Rohitas Krishnan, Proprietor of M/s. Quantum Power Tech had given a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs to him for giving it to one Sanjay Poddar and other political workers working for Madhu Koda for the purpose of expending it in the election. He had further disclosed that Binod Kumar Sinha (the petitioner) had given him a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to be given to Sanjay Poddar for expending it in the election. He had also disclosed that several license holders had given illegal gratification to R.K Sinha either for getting a fresh license or for renewal of the license. Non only that, the Staffs and Officers of the Board were also given illegal gratification for favouring the persons to have a fresh license or for renewal of the license. Thus, it has been alleged that said R.K Sinha, who had been appointed as Member Secretary of the Pollution Board, at the behest of these two petitioners had shown favour to the owners of crusher machines and also to the companies belonging to Binod Kumar Sinha and, thereby, the accused persons in conspiracy with each other, did illegal act, whereby a great loss was caused to the State exchequer and this has been done by misusing the office of the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

On such allegation, the case was registered as Vigilance P.S Case No. 52/2010, under Sections, 409, 406, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against these two petitioners upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. Subsequently, when the charges were framed against the petitioner Binod Kumar Sinha, under Section 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, said order framing charge was also challenged.

Similarly, when the charges were framed against the petitioner Madhu Koda under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, that order was challenged.

Mr. Bishwajeet Mukherjee and Mr. Anshuman Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Binod Kumar Sinha and Madhu Koda respectively submitted that these two petitioners are being prosecuted on the allegation that the petitioner Binod Kumar Sinha and one Rohitas Krishnan gave Rs. 50 lakhs and 40 lakhs respectively to Subodh Kumar Dubey, who before the authority of the Income Tax, stated that the money had been given by them, for expending it in the election of the petitioner Madhu Koda, whereas the case of the prosecution centers around the allegation that one R.K Sinha, Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, after taking illegal gratification from owners of the crushers, used to grant NOC or used to grant a fresh license or renewal of the license, but there has been absolutely no connection in between the fact of giving money by Binod Kumar Sinha or Rohitas Krishnan to Subodh Kumar Dubey with the issuance of forged NOC and if there has been no connection at all, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offences of cheating, forgery and also for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which get attracted against R.K Sinha and other, who had indulged themselves in the act of issuance of NOC on receiving illegal gratification.

It was further submitted that though these two petitioners are being prosecuted with the aid of Section 120 B IPC but there has been absolutely no material in the entire case diary to show that these two petitioners had had anything to do in the matter of issuance of NOC. There has been absolutely no material, circumstantial or direct, to show that there was meeting of minds in between these two petitioners on one hand and R.K Sinha or his agent on the other hand for hatching conspiracy for issuance of NOC by R.K Sinha after taking illegal gratification. Therefore, in such situation, even if the statement of Subodh Kumar Dubey, a co-accused, is accepted that Binod Kumar Sinha and Rohitas Krishnan gave a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and 40 lakhs for expending it in the electioneering work of the petitioner Madhu Koda, it hardly constitute any offence under which charges have been framed, but the Court below without taking into account this vital aspect, did frame charge after holding that primafacie materials are there for framing charges and, therefore, the orders framing charges, are fit to be quashed.

As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that R.K Sinha is a close associate of these two petitioners as it has come from the statement made by R.K Sinha before the Income Tax Authority that the Minister concerned had recommended his name for being appointed as Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board which had been approved by Madhu Koda and, therefore, it is apparent that at the behest of the petitioners, he was appointed as Member Secretary. Further, it has been gathered during investigation as it appears from the statement made by Santosh Prasad and Sanjay Kumar Sharda that only after receiving illegal gratification R.K Sinha used to grant NOC or license. Further, according to the statements made by Sanjay Poddar and Subodh Kumar Dubey, Rs. 50 lakhs were given by Binod Kumar Sinha and a sum or Rs. 40 lakhs was given by Rohitas Krishnan for expending it in the electioneering work of Parliamentary Election of Madhu Koda and thus, it is evident that there was close association in between the petitioners and R.K Sinha and that R.K Sinha had adopted corrupt practices in getting NOC issued to owners of the crushers and, thereby, it can be said that these two petitioners facilitated R.K Sinha to indulge in corrupt practices and, thereby, these two petitioners are certainly responsible in commission of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, orders framing charge never warrant to be quashed.

Before coming to the finding as to whether materials are there to frame charge or not against these two petitioners, provision as contained in Section 240 needs to be taken notice of, which reads as follows:-

“If upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by hi, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.”

Their Lordships in a case of “L.K Advanipetitioner v. Central Bureau Of Investigation.S of Investigation, reported in 1997 Cr. L.J 2559” after having regard to the provisions as contained in Section 240 did observe as follows:-

“(52) It is manifest from above that the charges can be framed against an accused person only in those discerning, few cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has shown a prima facie case against the accused and there is evidence before the Court which is capable of being converted into legal evidence later on during the subsequent proceedings after the framing of the charges. The matter with regard to the framing of the charges came up for consideration in a catena of authorities wherein time and again it was observed that the prosecution must show a prima facie case against the accused in order to enable the Court to frame a charge against him. If the evidence before the Court is of such type which if un-rebutted and un-challenged by way of cross-examination would not be sufficient enough to convict the accused ultimately then the Court would not be justified in framing the charge against the accused. The Court at that stage is under no obligation to make an elaborate enquiry by sifting and weighing the material to find out a case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt which it is required to do at the time of the final hearing. The Judge at that preliminary stage is simply required to find out that there was material which may lead to the inference that the accused has committed an offence. Thus the charge can be framed by the Court against an accused if the material placed before it raises a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence. In other words, the Court would be justified in framing the charges against an accused if the prosecution has sown the seed in the form of the incriminating material which has got the potential to develop itself into a full-fledged tree of conviction later on.”

Thus, what has been held is that if the material placed before it raises strong suspicion that the accused has committed offence, the Court would be justified in framing the charge.

Now, coming to the fact of the case, it be stated that the case of the prosecution relating to cheating, forgery and misconduct revolves around R.K Sinha, who has been alleged to have misused his office by issuing NOC or a fresh license or renewal of license after taking illegal gratification from the owners of the crusher units, and that he used to collect money from different owners of the crusher units through his agent Subodh Kumar Dubey. But, when these two petitioners are being prosecuted on the allegation that Binod Kumar Sinha and one Rohitas Krishnan gave Rs. 50 lakhs and 40 lakhs to Subodh Kumar Dubey to be given it to Sanjay Poddar for expending it in the electioneering work of the Parliamentary Election of Madu Koda, which allegation has nothing to do with the matter relating to issuance of NOC by R.K Sinha to different owners of the crusher units after receiving illegal gratification. In such situation, the said fact of giving money cannot be connected with the illegal act of R.K Sinha.

Further, nothing seems to be there on the record that any conspiracy was hatched by these two petitioners with said R.K Sinha pursuant to which R.K Sinha had indulged himself in the illegal activities as stated above. Simply, it has been placed that these two petitioners were instrumental in getting R.K Sinha appointed as Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, but that fact alone in absence of any other incriminating material, cannot be said to be an act of conspiracy.

Thus, I do find that there has been absolutely no link in between the fact of giving money by two persons including one of the petitioners to Subodh Kumar Dubey, for expending it in the Parliamentary Election of Madhu Koda and the illegal act committed by R.K Sinha. In such situation, I do find that the prosecution has failed to collect materials even for raising strong suspicion against the petitioners that the accused has committed offences, under which charges have been framed. Consequently, one is constrained to hold that there has been absolutely no material, which may lead to the inference that the accused has committed the offences, under which charges have been framed.

In such situation, the Court certainly seems to have committed illegality in framing the charges against these two petitioners. Accordingly, the orders, under which the charges have been framed against these two petitioners, are hereby quashed.

In the result, both these revision applications stand allowed.