Md. Kashim @ Md. Quasim v. The State Of Bihar Through Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar, Patna And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50743 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 1990 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Md. Kashim @ Md. Quasim Son of Md. Ayub R/o Village- Magahi Sarif, P.S. Patahi, District-East Champaran. At Present posted as Peon in the Office of District Eucation Officer, Motihari, East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar, Patna.

2. Sri Kamlesh Kumar, the then S.P (Vigilance) (Retired) Bureau of Investigation, Patna Bihar, P.S. Case 33/99.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L.O.,I/C,Vigi.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 3.

24-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Counsel representing the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2014 passed in Special Case No. 8 of 2002, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 33/1990, by learned Special Judge, Vigilance (North Bihar), Muzaffarpur.

A perusal of the order would show that it is a case of the year 1990 in which the petitioner was seeking adjournments time again and again. The trial court has found that there are enough materials on the record to frame charges under Sections 465, 467A, 201, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50743 of 2014 (3) dt.24-11-2017 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the court has to only satisfy with the sufficiency of the materials to find out whether those are enough to satisfy the ingredients of the offence, it is not a stage where the court has to consider whether there are chances of ultimate conviction or not.

Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity with the impugned order. The court has been informed that the trial has already begun and evidences are being led in the trial court.

This application has no merit, it is, accordingly, dismissed.

The trial court is directed to take up this case on day to day basis and conclude it within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order because it happens to be a 27 years old case which must come to a logical end.

Rajeev/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) U T