Sikkim High Court

CRL. REV. P/3/2000 of N.B. Bhandari Vs State of Sikkim through Central Bureau of Investigation on 3 October 2001

COURT 0F SEKKEM Crim'|n{ll Revision PpedltionNo.I Shri P. K. Pradhan, S/O Late K. 8. Pradhan, Sichey Busty, Gangtok East District, Sikkim. Vel.S|,S Petitioner. t`' State of sikkim through Central Bureau of Investigation Respondent. Present : Mr. D. K. Singh, Advocate along with Mr. P. K.

HN THE HIGH COURT 0F SEKKEMCrim'|n{ll Revision PpedltionNo.IShri P. K. Pradhan,S/O Late K. 8. Pradhan,Sichey Busty, GangtokEast District, Sikkim.Petitioner.Vel.S|,SState of sikkim throughCentral Bureau of InvestigationRespondent.Present : Mr. D. K. Singh, Advocate along withMr. P. K. Pradhan, the petitioner.Mr. 1. D. Vaid, Deputy Legal Adviser Advocatewith Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor forthe respondent -CBI.Mr. Vlpin Sharma, Inspector, CBI., ACU-V,NewDelhi.CginitnalRevision PetitionNo.2 oShri Sonam Wangdi Bhutia,S/O Shri Norbu Tshering Bhutia,R/0 Khamdong, East Sikkim.Petitioner.VersllsState of Sikkim through Central Bureauof InvestigationRespondent.

Present: Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya,.Advocate for the petitioner.Mr I. D. Vaid, Deputy Legal Adviser Advocate withMr.. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent -CBI.Mr. Vipin Sharma, Inspector, CBI., ACU-V, New Delhi.

C€rj|||ji_n_alRevisionPetitionNo.3o

Shri N. 8. Bhandafi,,RIO Samdur, Ranipool,P.O. Ranipool, East SikkimPetitioner.

Versl±s

State of Sikkim through Central Bureauof lnvestigationRespondent.

Present : Mr. BhaskarRaj Pradhan, Ad`n3cate for thePetitioner.Mr. I. D. Vaid, Deputy LegalAdviserAdvocatewith Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor forthe respondent - CBI.Mr. Vipin Sharma, Inspector, CBI.,ACU-V.,New Delhi.grininal Revision Petition Shri Sriliiwas Agarwa],S/O Shri Chandu Lal Agarwal,R/O Jorethang, South sikkim ........ Petitioner Vel.SIISState of Sikkim through CentralBureau of lnvcsligation ...... Respondent Present : Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for thePetitioner.

Mr. I. D. Vaid, Deputy Legal AdviserAdvocate with Mr. V. K. Sharma, PublicProsecutor for the respondent - CBI.

Mr. Vipin Sharma, Inspector, CBI.,ACU-V. New Delhi. .- Criminal Revision Petition No.5 o State of Sikkim throughCentral Bureau of Investigation,Anti Corruption Unit (V),New Delhi Petitioner

1. Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari.R/O Samdur, Ranipool.L'.O.Raiiipoc)I, Sikkii``.

2. Shri Puma Kumar Pradhan, IASthe then Secretary Rural DevelopmentDepartment, Govt. of sikkimR/O Sichey Busty, East Sikkim..

Page 1 of 4

3. Shri Nar Bahadur Rawat,S/O Man Bahadur Rawat,R/O Rawal Gaon, Malbasey,Block, West Sikkim.

4. Shri Harka Singh Chewan,S/O Dil Bahadur Chewan,IVO Malbz`sey, West Sikkim.

5. Shri Hari Prasad Rai.S/O Shri Pertuman Rai,R/O Pakki Gaon, Malbasey Block,West Sikkim.

I,.

6. Shri R. 8. Subba,S/O Raghubir Subba,R/O Pakki Gaon, Malbasey Block,West Sikkim.

7. Shri Hari Prasad Sharma,S/O Shri Bisl`nu Kant Sharma.R/O Pakki Gaon, Malbasey Block,West Sikkim.

8. Shri S. D. Tamang,S/O Shri N. P. Tamang,R/O Singtam, East Sikkim.

9. Shri Bhim Bahadur Gurung,S/O Late Bhakta Baliadur Gurung,R/O Sadam, Sikkim.

10. Shri Chctan Das Ghimirey.S/O Shri Padam Bahadur,R/O Pakyong Bazar, East Sikkim.

11. Shri Norbu Tshering Bhutia,S/O Shri Naga Bhutia`P.O. Khamdong, East Sikkim.

12. Shri Minjur Bhutia.S/O Shri Tshering Bhutia,R/O Singyang, P.O. Pelling,East Sikkim.

..... Respondents.

Corain :

Tlie Hon'ble Mr. Jiistice Ripiisdilan Dayal, Chief Jlistice.

I'resent : Mr. I. D. Vaid. Deputy Legal Adviser Advocatewith Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor fortlie revisionist/petitioner -CBI.

Mr. Vipin Kulnar, Inspector, CBl, ACU-V,New Delhi.

Page 2 of 4

Mr. BhaskarRaj pradhan, Advocate for therespondent No. I .Mr. D. K. Singh, Advocate along with Mr. P.K.Prad]ian, respondent No.2.,Mr. N. a. Kharga, Advocate for respondent Nos. 9and 10.Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondentNos.11 and 12.Mr. Nar Bahadur Rawat, respondent No.3 in personin Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. Harka Singh Chewan, respondent No.4 inperson in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. Hari Prasad Rai, respondent No.5 in person inCriminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. R. a. Subba, respondent No.6 in person inCriminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. Hari Prasad Sharma, respondent No.7 in personin Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. S. D. Tamang, respondent No.8 in person inCriminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. Bhim Bahadur Gurung, respondent No.9 inperson in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. `Mr. Chetan Das Ghimirey, respondent No.10 inperson in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000...Mr. Norbu Tshering Bhutia, respondent No.I]inperson in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Mr. Miiijur Bhutia, respondent No.]2 in person inCriminal Revision Petition No.5/2000.Date of Decision : 3rd october. 2oo|.

JUDGMENT

All these Revisions arise from the Order dated 04.12.]999ded on 31.1.2000 by the Special Judge, P.C. Act, Gangtok holdingthLtcharges against accused No. A-I I Sriniwas Agarwa], accused No.fi:i:3edAun:er:euc¥::]a2nod_Ba:Cfutsheed]n::af-p]e5na:°cnoadmeaYdana::;;n:thauct::s::NA-1 Sri N. 8. Bhandari and accused No.A-2 Sri P. K. Pradhan underSetion 5.(2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of CorruptionA1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of tliePqevention of corruption Act,1988 read with Section 120-a of the IndianPal Code. It was further held that there was no /?r/./77cr/crc/.e materialainst accused Nos. A4 to A-10, A+12, A-14 and A-1,7 i.e Nar BahadurR wat, Harka Singh Chewan, Hari Prasad Rai, R. 8. Subba, Hari PrasadS arma, S. D. Tamang, Bhim Bahadur Gurung, Chetan Das Ghimirey,N rbu Tshering Bhutia and Minzur Bhutia and so they were discharged.

Page 3 of 4

Criminal Revision No.5 of 2000 has been filed by the CBI on thethat in respect of some of the schemes there is niaterial availablecord justifying the framing of charges in those schemes but thees were not framed in respect of those schemes. It has beented that Scheme Nos.1,10 and 11 were not even discussed. Inct of Scheme No.2, the learned trial Court held`.tllat 's~ince charge-had not been filed against R. K. 6oel, there was no ground toPerair:eeeddt:]at[h:hoeutftn::a,:a:fnascttaacnc:S]eadwN::r]eaasnodn,2s,nRceeas]:nag;Ve::o:yht::

\V en any offender has been left out by the prosecuting branch, the agistrate has the I.urisdiction to proceed against that person. This legalsition has been clarified by the Supreme Court in M/S SWIL Ltd.Versus State of Delhi & Another 2001 AIR SCW 3017 and also inPrasad Versus Bashir 2001 SOL Case No.554.

Arguments

Learned Counsel for the parties agree tliat the charges framed bye learned trial Court pursuant to the impugned order are not proper inrm. All the Counsel agree that the matter may be remitted to the learnedal Court for considering the matter again after giving opportunity ofng heard to them.

Accepting the request of the learned Counsel for the parties;sent, I allow the aforesaid revisions, set aside the impugned order dated12.1999 amended on 31.01.2000 and the charges framed pursuantreto and remit the matter for reconsideration after giving opportunity ofng heard to all the parties concerned. Parties shall appear before therned trial Court on 18.10.2001.

£4L

( Rip,`s,I,I,,n D`lyal )

Cliie.fJIIst.Ice3.10.2001.

RERTEiEB ap BE F_H-tiE c®B&

^T GAueTor

iil1

Page 4 of 4

Loading citations and judicial treatment…