IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No.2582 of 2018

Tribhuwan Yadav, Aged about 53 years, Son of late Pitamber

Yadav, Resident of Bilotand, P.O. – Kharagdiha, P.S. – Deori,
District – Giridih … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
… … Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Adv.
For the Vigilance : Mr. T.N. Verma, Adv.
---
06/22.01.2020 Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:
“For quashing of order framing charge dated 30.05.2018
passed by learned ADJ – IInd – cum – Spl. Judge (ACB), Dhanbad in
connection with Spl. Vigilance Case No.70/2015 arising out of
Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 2015 dated 08.10.2015 for the offence
u/s 7/13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, pending in the court of
learned ADJ – II nd – Spl. Judge (ACB), Dhanbad.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to para 20
of the petition to submit that the number of note mentioned in
Sl. No.1 of Pre-trap Memorandum dated 09.10.2015 which is
mentioned as 2CP 172700 does not tally with the number
mentioned in the search, recovery and seizure list at Sl. No.1.
He further refers to para 21 of the petition to submit that all the
witnesses during the course of investigation, have stated before
the Investigation Officer that the copy of the seizure list was
handed over to the accused namely Hari Ram which falsifies
the entire prosecution version.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed in the instant case
wherein a letter dated 13.10.2015 has been annexed which is
addressed to the learned court below wherein, it has been
mentioned that there has been certain typographical error in
 2

connection with the number of notes and the denomination No.

2CP 172700 should be read as 3CP 172700.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court finds that as per the allegation, three notes were
recovered and so far as recovery of two notes are concerned, no
argument in that connection has been advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. So far as witnesses are concerned, the
statement of witnesses etc. are matter of trial and the present
case is arising out of trap case when allegedly the petitioner was
caught red handed with tainted money.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter
including the counter-affidavit filed by the State, this Court is
not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
quash the order framing charge against the petitioner.
7. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the trial had already begun and he further submits that any
observation made by this Court may not prejudice the case of
the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed
and it is observed that any observation made in this order will
not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court
below.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through FAX.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Saurav/