Jharkhand High CourtGanesh Kumar Ram vs The Union Of India Through Central ... on 30 March, 2022Author:Anil Kumar ChoudharyBench:Anil Kumar ChoudharyCr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020\n\n\n\n\n   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                  Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020\n                                 ------Ganesh Kumar Ram, aged about 46 years, son of Kripa Ram,\n   resident of village Baihari, Post Oriya, Police Station Muffassil, District\n   Hazaribagh                                  ...                Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n\n   The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation\n                                         ...           Opposite Party------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY------For the Petitioner            : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate\n                                    Ms. Shreyanshi Verma, Advocate\n                                    Mr. Samavesh B. Deo, Advocate\n                                    Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocate\n    For the C.B.I.                : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.\n                                    Mr. Navneet Sahay, A.C. to A.S.G.I\n                                    ------\n                             PRESENT\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARYBy the Court:- Heard the parties through video conferencing.2.     This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed underSection 482Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the jurisdiction of this Court with a\n\n   prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the Order\n\n   dated 30.09.2019 taking cognizance for the offences punishable underSection 120 (B),201,420,468,471of the Indian Penal Code and underSection 13 (2)read withSection 13 (1) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption\n\n   Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R inter alia against the petitioner and\n\n   the co-accused persons.3.     The brief facts of the case is that the co-accused persons respectively\n\n   being the member, examination controller-cum-secretary of the Jharkhand\n\n   Public Service Commission along with private personnel of M/s. Global1Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020Informatics and inter alia the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy\n\nand in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the public servants in\n\nabuse of their respective official positions, dishonestly and fraudulently\n\nensured that the petitioner who secured less marks than the cut-off marks,\n\nwas fraudulently and dishonestly declared successful in the result\n\npublished by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and was appointed\n\nas Lecturer in Economics on the basis of eligibility attained by their\n\nfraudulent J.E.T. (Jharkhand Eligibility Test) results and the co-accused\n\npersons including the brother of the then Member of the Jharkhand Public\n\nService Commission, sister of one of the members of the then member of\n\nJharkhand Public Service Commission. It is further alleged that the co-\n\naccused public servants in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner and the\n\nother co-accused persons, using their official position dishonestly and\n\nfraudulently manipulated the merit list, assessment charts to extend undue\n\nbenefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and under the\n\nguidance of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the petitioner was\n\ndeclared qualified even though he secured marks less than the candidates\n\nwho even after securing more marks, could not qualify for the post of\n\nLecturers and the recruitment test was conducted in complete violation of\n\nthe Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Rules of Procedure), 2002. It is\n\nfurther alleged that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner\n\nonly received 107 marks in Paper III of the Jharkhand Eligibility Test\n\nwhereas the minimum marks required for Economics was 113 but still in\n\ncriminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servants by committing2Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020forgery and cheating managed to get him appointed as lecturer in\n\nEconomics.4.    After completion of investigation of the case, the Central Bureau of\n\nInvestigation submitted charge-sheet inter alia finding that the petitioner\n\nalong with the co-accused persons having committed the offences\n\npunishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of theIndian Penal Codeand underSection 13 (2)read with 13 (1) (d) of thePrevention of Corruption\n\nAct, 1988though as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner\n\nalso in the individual page in the format of internal page-35 of the charge-\n\nsheet in serial No. (xvi) it has been mentioned that the petitioner has\n\ncommitted offences punishable "Under Acts & Sections- u/s 120B, 420, 468\n\n& 471 ofIPC" only and there is no reference of either underSection 201of\n\nthe IPC or the penal provisions ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988though in internal page-92 of the charge-sheet, it has categorically been\n\nmentioned that the facts and circumstances, prima facie disclose the\n\ncommission of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 201/420/468/471 ofIPCandSection 13 (2)r/w 13 (1) (d) ofP.C. Act, 1988in respect of all the\n\naccused persons including the petitioner. The learned trial court on perusal\n\nof the relevant documents found that the offence punishable under Sections\n\n120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of theIndian Penal Codeand underSection 13 (2)read with 13 (1) (d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988is made out\n\ninter alia against the petitioner and vide order dated 30.09.2019 took\n\ncognizance for the said offences inter alia against the petitioner.5.    Mrs. Ritu Kumar- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the\n\npetitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been3Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020inserted by the investigating agency in the charge-sheet without any\n\nevidence against him. It is next submitted that the allegation inter alia\n\nagainst the petitioner is highly absurd, obnoxious and concocted and only\n\nfor the purpose of his false implication in this case in the absence of any\n\nevidence of any overt act on the part of the petitioner, still the petitioner has\n\nbeen projected by the prosecuting agencies during the investigation of the\n\ncase as an accused person of this case. It is next submitted that the\n\nprosecuting agency has misunderstood and misinterpreted the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case entirely. It is then submitted that as per the\n\nadvertisement, three papers were prescribed for declaration of the\n\ncandidates eligible for the post of Lecturer and the aggregate marks of these\n\nthree papers were to be considered and not that minimum marks for Paper\n\nIII. It is next submitted that because of this misconception, the Central\n\nBureau of Investigation has alleged that securing of 113 marks in the Paper\n\nIII was a sine qua non for being selected as a Lecturer in Economics.6.     Drawing attention of this Court towards the copy of the order passed\n\nby a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amardeep Vs. State of\n\nJharhand and Others in W.P. (C) No.5095 of 2007 decided on 05.03.2009,\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the said Amardeep, who\n\nwas the unsuccessful candidate for selection of Lecturer in English, has\n\nobtained 60 marks in Paper I, 58 marks in Paper II and 104 marks in Paper\n\nIII, thus, the average marks were 56 and the co-ordinate Bench allowed the\n\nwrit petition of Amardeep and directed the respondent of that case to\n\nconsider the case of Amardeep and declared him successful candidate in the\n\ntest conducted by J.P.S.C. and similarly in the case ofManoj Kumar Gupta4Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anotherin W.P. (C).No.3705 of 2015 also the\n\nDivision Bench of this Court held that the J.P.S.C. would not fix the\n\nminimum marks for Paper III thoughthe said judgmenthas been set aside\n\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India subsequent to filing of the charge-\n\nsheet by the C.B.I. in this case vide its judgment dated 18.12.2019 inJharkhand Public Service Commission Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta &\n\nAnotherin Civil Appeal No.9441 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave\n\nPetition (Civil) No.14926 of 2017 by observing as under in paragraph-8:-8. "In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High\nCourt erred in holding that the JPSC could not fix the minimum marks for Paper\nIII. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 09.11.2016. The Civil\nAppeal No. 9441 of 2019 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14926 of 2017 filed by\nthe Jharkhand Public Service Commission is allowed and C.A. No. 9442 of 2019\n@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31106 of 2017 filed by the other side (writ\npetitioner) is dismissed."7.     Lastly, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case\n\nNo. 04(A)/2013-R as well as impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed in\n\nR.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R, be quashed and set aside.8.     Mr. Prasahant Pallav-learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the C.B.I. on the\n\nother hand submits that this being a case of criminal conspiracy, direct\n\nevidence of involvement of the petitioner in any overt criminal act is not a\n\nsine qua non and the fact that even though the petitioner did not secure the\n\nminimum marks, still he has been selected as a Lecturer of Economics\n\nspeaks volumes about his complicity in the criminal conspiracy. It is further\n\nsubmitted that the minimum qualifying marks for English in the case of\n\nAmardeep was 100 in Paper III and Amardeep secured more than the\n\nminimum qualifying marks so on this score, the facts of case of Amardeep\n\nstand on different footing than this petition but as in the case ofJharkhand\n\nPublic Service Commission Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anotherin Civil5Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020Appeal No.9441 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)\n\nNo.14926 of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has in no uncertain\n\nterms, held that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has rightly fixed\n\nthe minimum marks for Paper III.Hence, the said judgments of Amardeep\n\n(supra) orManoj Kumar Gupta(supra) certainly cannot be a valid ground\n\nto quash the entire criminal proceeding.9.    It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that there is\n\nno merit in the contention of the petitioner that no illegality was done in the\n\nselection process of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the impugned\n\norder taking cognizance categorically reflects the application of the judicial\n\nmind on the part of the learned trial court and there is no illegality in the\n\nimpugned order and merely because the offence punishable underSection\n\n201of the Indian Penal Code or for that matter the penal provisions ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988was not mentioned in one of the formats\n\nof the description in the accused persons in the opening part of the charge-\n\nsheet because of oversight or printing error certainly cannot debar the trial\n\ncourt when there are materials in the record to suggest that the petitioner\n\nwas involved in criminal conspiracy in respect of the offence punishable\n\nunderSection 201of the Indian Penal Code and the offences punishable\n\nunder the penal provisions ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988besides\n\nthe other offences punishable under theIndian Penal Codewhen in the\n\nconcluding page of the charge-sheet itself, it has been categorically\n\nmentioned and urged upon the Court by the C.B.I. to take cognizance for\n\nthe all the said offences including the offence punishable underSection 201of the Indian Penal Code and the penal provisions of Prevention of6Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020Corruption Act, 1988against the petitioner as well. It is further submitted\n\nthat the prayer for quashing of the order taking cognizance made by the co-\n\naccused Dr. Satish Kumar Singh, the allegations against whom are similar to\n\nthe instant petitioner, has already been dismissed by this Court vide\n\njudgment dated 17.04.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1058 of 2020 and the same\n\nprayer of the co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh has also been dismissed by\n\nthis Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2161 of\n\n2020. It is then submitted that there is neither any illegality in the impugned\n\norder nor is there any justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal\n\nproceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any\n\nmerit, be dismissed.10.   Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully\n\ngoing through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that there is\n\nspecific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner, in criminal\n\nconspiracy with the co-accused public servant member and controller of\n\nexaminations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, by fraudulent\n\nand dishonest means, ensured that the petitioner is declared qualified in the\n\nresult published by the J.P.S.C. and appointed as Lecturer on the basis of the\n\neligibility obtained by the said fraudulent means.11.   It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is in regard to the\n\noffence and not the offender. At the stage of taking cognizance, the court\n\nconcerned is not required to consider the defence version or the materials or\n\narguments in that respect nor is it required to evaluate the merits of the\n\nmaterials or evidence of the prosecution because the Magistrate must not\n\nundertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will7Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020lead to conviction or not. It is pertinent to mention that taking cognizance\n\ndoes not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs\n\nas soon as a Magistrate, as the case may be, as such applies his mind to the\n\nsuspected commission of an offence. Taking cognizance of an offence is not\n\nthe same thing as issuance of process, as has been observed by the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court of India in the case ofState of Karnataka & Another v.\n\nPastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728 paragraphs- 10 and 13 of which read as\n\nunder:"10. Several provisions in Chapter XIV of theCode of Criminal Procedureuse the word "cognizance". The very first section in the said Chapter viz. Section\n190 lays down how cognizance of offences will be taken by a Magistrate. However,\nthe word "cognizance" has not been defined in theCode of Criminal Procedure. The\ndictionary meaning of the word "cognizance" is -- "judicial hearing of a matter".The meaning of the word has been explained by judicial pronouncements and it has\nacquired a definite connotation. The earliest decision of this Court on the point isR.R. Chari v. State of U.P., (AIR 1951 SC 207) wherein it was held: (SCR p. 320)\n\n      "... 'taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of\n      any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the\n      suspected commission of an offence."13. It is necessary to mention here that taking cognizance of an offence is not\nthe same thing as issuance of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when\nthe Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to\na police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence\nhas been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after\nconsidering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the\noffenders against whom a prima facie case is made out." (Emphasis supplied)12.     Considering the overwhelming materials in the record, that the co-\n\naccused public servants in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner and the\n\nco-accused     persons,    using   their   official    position     dishonestly   and\n\nfraudulently manipulated the merit list, assessment charts to extend undue\n\nbenefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and on the\n\nguidance of Jharkhand public service commission, the petitioner was\n\ndeclared selected even though he secured marks less than the candidates8Cr. M.P. No.1189 of 2020who even after securing more marks, could not qualify for the post of\n\n                  Lecturer in Economics and the recruitment test was conducted in complete\n\n                  violation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,\n\n                  2002 and that though the petitioner only secured 107 marks in Paper III of\n\n                  the Jharkhand Eligibility Test, whereas the minimum marks required for\n\n                  Economics was 113 but still in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused\n\n                  public servants by committing cheating and forgery the petitioner managed\n\n                  to get him appointed as Lecturer in Economics, this Court is of the\n\n                  considered view that there are ample materials in the record for the learned\n\n                  trial court to take cognizance of the offences punishable underSection 120B,201,420,468,471of the Indian Penal Code and underSection 13 (2)read\n\n                  with 13 (1) (d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988and that the\n\n                  uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the\n\n                  petitioner of having committed the said offences. Accordingly, this Court\n\n                  does not find any justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding\n\n                  against the petitioner either.13.      Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any\n\n                  merit, is dismissed.14.       This Cr.M.P. is disposed of accordingly.(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)\nHigh Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi\nDated the 30th March, 2022.AFR/ Animesh9