STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 09-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 255 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1615 of 2013) 
JULY 9, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) 
- Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 477A, 201, 
109 and 1208 - FIR - Legality of - Complaints lodged against 
Respondent no.1-IAS officer while he was posted in the cadre 
A 
B 
c 
of Unified Bihar - Inquiry instituted against him by Vigilance 
Department, Government of Bihar - Unified State of Bihar 
bifurcated into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand o 
through the Reorganisation Act - Respondent no. 1 allotted! 
transferred to Jharkhand Cadre - FIR subsequently lodged 
against him by Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government 
of Bihar at Patna - Challenged before High Court - With 
reference to provisions of the Reorganisation Act, the High 
Court held that the FIR instituted by State of Bihar, much after 
the appointed day for bifurcation of the State of Bihar into the 
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand was not 
maintainable and quashed the FIR - Held: High Court erred 
in referring to the provisions of the Reorganisation Act and 
circulars issued by the Central Government for holding the 
FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar - The FIR was 
based on inquiry initiated by Vigilance Department of the 
State of Bihar prior to re-organisation of the States - However, 
E 
F 
in view of circular dated 20th December, 2000 and by letter 
dated 1 Oth July, 2001 rlw s. 76 of the Reorganisation Act, such 
G 
inquiry should have been transferred to Vigilance Department 
of the State of Jharkhand while the Vigilance Department, 
Government of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate 
255 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
against Respondent no. 1 - Respondent no. 1 had challenged 
inquiry by Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar by. 
filing a writ petition, and thereafter also filed a contempt 
petition, which was disposed of by the High Court with a pre-
emptory order to dispose of the inquiry within 8 months - But 
s since inquiry against Respondent no. 1 was not completed 
within stipulated time. as directed by the High Court, the 
proceedings stood quashed on ground of non-compliance of 
Court's order - FIR lodged· against Respondent no.1, being 
based on vigilance inquiry which stood quashed, was not 
c maintainable - Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 - ss. 76 and 
89. 
The 1st respondent was an IAS officer for the cadre 
of unified Bihar and posted as the Managing Director of 
the Bihar State Financial Corporation ("BSFC"). 
D Complaints were received against the 1st respondent 
and some others alleging that they floated NGOs and 
received illegal gratification and also were involved in 
tampering of records. The Vigilance Department, 
Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry. The 1st 
E respondent at that stage filed a writ petition in the Patna · 
High Court challenging the inquiry. The same was 
disposed of with certain observations. The observation 
made by the High Court having not complied with, a 
contempt petition was filed by the 1st respondent in the 
F Patna High Court. It was disposed of with a pre-emptory 
order to dispose of the inquiry within 8 months, subject 
to grant of extension. 
Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated 
into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand 
G through the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The 1st 
respondent 1/'Yl&'iillottedltransferred to Jharkhand Cadre. 
In absence of any progress in the Vigilance inquiry, the 
1st respondent filed writ petition before the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi.The High Court of Jharkhand 
H 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 257 
refused to interfere with the inquiry and dismissed the 
A 
writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the 1st 
respondent against the order was also dismissed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand. 
On the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance 
8 
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance case dated 20th 
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/ 
201/109/120B l.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
against the 1st respondent. The FIR was lodged by 
C 
Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at 
Patna. The 1st respondent challenged the FIR dated 20th 
August, 2002 by filing a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.