Page No.# 1/13 GAHC040008952016 2026:GAU-AP:89 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./3/2016 M/S D.D.H. SALT DIBRUGARH, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI DIPAK GOGOI, S/O LT. AMRIT CHANDRA GOGOI, RESIDENT OF UDAIPUR, PO/PS DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 9435033477 VERSUS THE STATE OF A.P. AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELLVIGILANCE, CHIMPU, ITANAGAR, AP 2:SRI NGURANG AYA Age: 0 Occupation : S/O LT. NGURANG TATO PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SENKI PARK PO/PS ITANAGAR DIST. PAPUM PARE A Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K Lollen, R Bori,MS.C D Thongchi,I Bagra,MR.L Bam,MrR Saikia,MR.T Zirdo,Mr.L Nochi Advocate for the Respondent : N Sora, Ojing Pada,SC (SIC),,,P Ete,B Lingu,MR.B Sora,MrM Kato,P P of AP,SPL.P.P. Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./3/2016 Page No.# 2/13 THE STATE OF AP Age: 0 Occupation : Address:REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR VERSUS SHRI NGURANG AYA AND ANR. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:PROPRIETOR OF M/S AYA TECHNNOCRAFT SON OF LT. NRUGANG TATO PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SENKI PARK PO/PS ITANAGAR DIST. PAPUM PARE AP 2:THE DDH SALT Age: 0 Occupation : Address:DIBRUGARH REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI DIPAK GOGOI S/O LT. AMRIT CHANDRA GOGOI RESIDENT OF UDAIPUR PO/PS DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : Sr. Govt. Advocate Advocate for : MrM Kato appearing for SHRI NGURANG AYA AND ANR.: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. Page No.# 3/13 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 28/01/2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Lollen in Crl.Petn./3/2016. Also heard learned Special Public Prosecutor(SIC), Ms. O. Pada for the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P./3/2016 and Mr. M. Kato, Learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. 2. As both the cases arises out of the same case i.e., Naharlagun PS Case No. 29/2014 re-registered as SIC (VIG) PS Case No. 9/2014, the petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. Criminal petitionNo. 03/2016 is an application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia by which the alleged person/respondent No. 2 Shri. Ngurang Aya proprietor of Aya Technocrat was allowed to operate the SBI bank Account No. 31241581240 and to withdraw the seized amount of Rs. 2,82,14,949/- (Rupees two crores eighty two lakhs fourteen thousand nine hundred forty Nine) with a conditionthat he will produce the amount before the trial court as and when required. 4. The case of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3/2016 is that the petitioner is the power of attorney holder of M/s D.D.H. Salt Dibrugarh which is a registered firm. It is stated that a deed of agreement dated 10.09.2002 was Page No.# 4/13 entered into between the Director of Civil Supplies Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the petitioner firm, whereby the authority concerned agreed to allow the carriage of PDS items of Iodized salt from the PDS go downs at Tinsukia/Dibrugarh to the various Districts of Arunachal Pradesh, to the petitioner firm with certain terms and condition. The petitioner firm executed the work and upon completion of the said delivery work, the petitioner submitted bills on monthly basis amounting to Rs. 12,25,01,205/- (Rupees twelve crores twenty five lakhs one thousand two hundred five) to the Deputy Commissioner/District Supply Officer, Changlang District for onward submission to the authority. After having received the bills submitted by the petitioner and after scrutiny the Deputy Commissioner,ChanglangDistrict vide letter No. CHG/CS/LTS-150/2006-07 (PART) dated 29.06.2007 forwarded the bills to the Director of Civil Supplies Government of Arunachal Pradesh and further requested to make necessary payment to the petitioner but till date no payment has been made by the Civil Supplies Department. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after forwarding of the bills by letter dated 29.06.2007, the petitioner approached the Civil Supplies Department from time to time requesting for payment of the admitted bills and on every approach the department made excuses of paucity of fund and assured the petitioner that his bills will be released very soon. However, till date not a single penny had been paid to the petitioner. In the meantime, the Deputy Secretary Department of Food and Civil Supplies Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued a financial sanction order vide No. DFCS/LTS/2009 (Pt-1) dated 03.02.2014 conveying that the Arunachal Pradesh was pleased to accord Expenditure Sanction of Rs. 24,51,38,265/-(Rupees twenty four crore fifty one lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred sixty five) only towards payment of Page No.# 5/13 pending bills being the transportation charges of Iodized Salt and S.K.Oil to various FPS locations of Arunachal Pradesh for the period July, 2003 to September, 2005. The concerned authority had jointly sanction the said amount against four different firms namely (1) M/S M.P Enterprise (2) M/S C.C. Traders (3) M/S Mamangborang and (4) M/S D.D.H Salt and the name of the petitioner’s firm, namely M/S D.D.H. Salt is listed at Sl. No.4 and in terms of the sanctioned order an amount of Rs. 12,25,01,205/- (Rupees twelve crore twenty five lakh one thousand two hundred five) only has been sanctioned against the petitioner’s firm which was the bill amount submitted by the petitioner. 6. Upon learning about the sanction order dated 03.02.2014, the petitioner visited the office of the Director Food and Civil Supply Government of Arunachal Pradesh and enquired about the release of the pending bills. However, the Director of Food and Civil Supply replied that the said sanctioned bills had already been disbursed to the respective proprietor/attorney holder as per their entitlement, but the petitioner firm had not received a single paisa. Upon further enquiry the petitioner found that the Director Food and Civil Supply, without proper verification of fake documents/power of attorney had paid the entire sanctioned amount of Rs. 24,51,38,265/- by issuing various cheques to one Shri. Bhola Pradhan who impersonated himself to be the power of attorney holder of the aforementioned four firms. Thereafter, the petitioner along with the other three firms immediately lodged a joint FIR dated 17.02.2014 before the officer-in-charge Naharlagun Police Station through an authorized person namely Shri. Tarh Kuyu as the petitioner and the other proprietors were not residing at Naharlagun. The joint FIR was lodged stating that the cheques issued by the Director of Food and Civil Supply to one Bhola Pradhan was not connected in any way with the four firms or their proprietors. It was further Page No.# 6/13 stated in the FIR that the cheques were deposited in the State Bank of India, Naharlagun Branch, in fake and fictitious accounts in the name of the aforementioned four firms. Further it was stated that the Director of Food and Civil Supply and/or his office staff had handed over the cheques to the said Bhola Pradhan who is not even connected to the four firms without proper verification and identification and without verifying that the bank accounts opened in the names of the aforementioned firms were fake accounts. Consequently the Naharlagun Police Station registered the case being Naharlagun PS Case No. 29/2014 under Section 468/471/418/419/420/34 IPC. 7. It is further stated that pursuant to the FIR dated 17.02.2014 the investigating agency started the investigation and arrested officers and staff of the Department of Food &Civil Supplies and also the respondent No. 2/accused. The prime accused Bhola Pradhan is still absconding and is yet to be apprehended by the police authorities. The respondent No. 2 was arrested on 12.03.2014 and his statement was reported wherein he admitted receiving a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five cores) from one Bhola Pradhan. 8. While the investigation was on going the State Government had directed the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig) to investigate the case relating to Naharlagun PS Case No. 29/2014 and accordingly the entire case records were transferred to the SIC Vigilance and re-registered as SIC Vigilance PS Case No. 09/2014 and consequent upon the transfer Section 13 (1)(c)(d) &13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was incorporated into the case and investigated. During the investigation the SBI Account No. 31241581240 belonging to the respondent No. 2 was frozen at the instance of the investigating agency. During the investigation it was revealed that an amount of Rs.5,50,00,056/- (Rupees Page No.# 7/13 five crore fifty thousand fifty six)was deposited in the account of M/S Aya Technocrats/Respondent No. 2 through Cheques No. 436507 from the fake account of M/S DDH salt on 07.12.2014, and the said amount was a part of the alleged misappropriated amount and has direct link with the commission of the offence. 9. The petitioner further states that the respondent No. 2 who is one of the main accused in the SIC (Vig) case filed MISC Application No. 115/2015 under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia praying for de-freezing of his account and for releasing Rs. 2,82,14,949/- (Rupees two crores eighty two lakh fourteen thousand nine hundred forty Nine) lying in the account of the respondent No. 2 at SBI, Naharlagun Branch under the name of M/S Aya Technocrats which has been seized by the investigating officer in connection with the SIC (Vig) PS Case No. 9/2014 and further prayed that the respondent No. 2 may be allowed to operate the SBI account bearing No. 31241581240. The learned CJM, Yupia called for the status report of the Case from the Officer-in-charge SIC (Vig) Chimpu, Itanagar and accordingly, the status report dated 04.12.2015 was forwarded to the court. It was specifically stated in clause 12 of the status report that the account of the respondent No. 2 had been frozen during the investigation of the case to prevent further transaction as the respondent No.2 had confirmed that he had received an amount of Rs. 5,50,00,056/- from the amount fraudulently withdrawn by the main accused Bhola Pradhan. It was stated in the status report that the said amount was a part of the alleged misappropriated amount and has direct link with the commission of the offence. The status report also reveals that large number of transactions were made at the behest of the respondent No. 2; some amounts were in cash; some were transferred by RTGS to different accounts of Page No.# 8/13 various individuals and all these transactions were made through fictitious firms. It was revealed in the status report that the investigating agency prayed that the seized amount should continue to be in frozen status in the interest of investigation as the entire amount is government money and never belonged to the respondent No. 2. It was also stated in the status report that consequent upon transfer of the case to the SIC (Vig) Section 13 (1)(c)(d) & 13(2) PC Act have been incorporated into the case. The prosecution through the learned Public Prosecutor objected to the prayer of the respondent No. 2 in MISC ApplicationNo. 115/2015 and submitted that the prayer of the respondent No. 2 for de-freezing of the bank account may not be allowed till the completion of the investigation. However, the learned CJM, Yupia allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 by the impugned order dated 05.12.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court stating that the learned court below had passed the order dated 05.12.2015 without application of mind and thereby allowed the respondent No. 2 who is one of the main accused to operate the seized bank account and released the seized amount for his personal use. 10. It is also argued that the learned court below totally failed to appreciate the status report as furnished by the officer-in-charge of the SIC (Vig) wherein it was categorically stated that an amount of Rs. 5,50,00,056/- was deposited in the Account No. 31241581240 through cheque No. 436507 from the fake bank account of M/S DDH Salt on 07.12.2014 which was a part of the amount fraudulently withdrawn basing on the cheque issued by the Department of Food &Civil Supplies and that the said amount was a portion of the misappropriated amount and has direct link with the commission of the offence. Page No.# 9/13 11. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the investigation has revealed that the prime accused Bhola Pradhan was the driver of respondent No. 2 and therefore, had a direct link with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 may be quashed and set aside and the learned court below may be directed to direct the respondent No 2 to deposit the seized amount of rupees Rs. 2,82,14,949/- (Rupees two crore eighty two lakh fourteen thousand nine hundred forty Nine) before the trial court forthwith. 12. The State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by the Secretary Home Department Government of Arunachal Pradesh has filed the Crl.Rev.P./3/2016 under Section 401 r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in SIC Vig PS Case No. 09/2014 (Originally) PS Case No. 29/2014, by which the learned CJM has de-freezed the bank account of the respondent No. 1/ Ngurang Aya/accused and has allowed him to operate the SBI Account No. 31241581240 and withdraw the seized amount of Rs. 2,82,14,949/- with a condition that he will produce the amount deposited in his account before the learned court as and when required. 13. The learned SPP SIC Vigilance appearing for the petitioner in Crl.Rev./3/2016 had adopted the submission made by the petitioner in CRP./3/2016. Additionally, the learned SPP has submitted that the learned CJM has erred in law as well as in facts by passing the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 while the matter was pending investigation before the SIC vigilance in Case No. 09/2014 and specially when the investigation had recalled that the respondent No.1/accused had made a statement that he had received an Page No.# 10/13 amount of Rs. 5,50,00,056/- from the fake account of M/S DDH Salt on 07.12.2014 and the said amount was a part of the alleged misappropriated amount and has direct link with the commission of the offence. 14. Another ground taken by the learned SPP SIC Vig is that after the SIC Vig took over the case Section 13 (1)(c)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also added and therefore, the court having jurisdiction is the court of District and Sessions Judge, Yupia and not the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. The learned SPP has produced a copyof the notification dated 17.09.2015 wherein in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(1) of the prevention of corruption Act 1988, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had designated the District and Session Judge, Yupia to be the special court under PC Act in respect of Kra-daadi, Lower Subansiri, Kurung Kumey and Papum Pare. He therefore, submits that as on 05.12.2015 when the impugned order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, the designated and competent court to take up the matter was the District and Session Judge, Yupia. 15. In the facts and circumstances as stated above learned Special Public Prosecutor also submits that the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 is an abuse of the process of law and therefore, this court may set aside the impugned order in exercise of the inherent power of this court under Section 482 Cr.PC/528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 16. Mr. M. Kato, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 in Crl.Petn./3/2016 and the respondent No. 1 in Crl.Rev.P./03/2016 while objecting to the prayer made by the petitioners in the aforementioned 2 (two) petitions Page No.# 11/13 has submitted that the informant/complainant has not been impleaded as a respondent and therefore, the petitions are not maintainable. He has further submitted that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 03/2016 is not an aggrieved person as the alleged misappropriated amount if any belonged to the government and not to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is also not an aggrieved party and could not have filed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 03/2016 as the complaint/FIR was not filed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Further, learned counsel has submitted that the investigation has not been hampered in any manner by the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 and no loss has been caused to the petitioner by de-freezing the account of the respondent. Learned counsel therefore submits that Criminal Petition No. 03/2016 and Crl.Rev.Petn. No. 3/2016 are devoid of merit and therefore, do not warrant the interference of this Court by invoking section 482 Cr.P.C/ 528 BNSS. 17. The court has given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Without going into the merit of the case, this court finds force in the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor(SIC)Vigilance that the learned CJM, Yupia did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the MISC Application No. 115/2015under Section 457 Cr.P.C. This court has taken note of the Notification No. JUD-82/86(Pt) dated 17.09.2015 by which the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had designated the court of District and Sessions Judge, Yupia as the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the District of Papum Pare along with three other districts. This court has also seen that the Naharlagun PS Case No. 29/2014 under Section 468/471/418/419/420/34 IPC Page No.# 12/13 was transferred to the SIC (Vig) and re-registered as SIC (Vig) PS Case No. 9/2014 and thereafter, Section 13 (1)(c)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention for Corruption Act were added. Therefore, when the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 was passed by court of CJM, Yupia the investigation was already was taken up by the SIC Vig and the Offence under Prevention of Corruption was added. The status report was also submitted to the learned Court below by the Officer-in-charge of the SIC Vig. However, the learned Trial Court had proceeded to dispose of the matter in spite of the lack of jurisdiction. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is an abuse of the process of law as it was passed without jurisdiction. 18. This Court has considered the objection made regard maintainability. The petitioner in CRP 06/2016 is one of the four firms in whose name the amount of Rs. 24,51,38,265/- was released by creating a fake account in the name of the petitioner firm along with the 3 (three) firms. The FIR had also been lodged by the petitioner firm and the other 3 firms. The petitioner is clearly an aggrieved party. The State of Arunachal Pradesh is also an aggrieved person as the misappropriated amount was fraudulently withdrawn from the State Exchequer and the prosecution is conducted by the State. In view of the finding of this court that the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 was passed without jurisdiction, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. As a result, Crl.Petn./3/2016and Crl.Rev.P/3/2016 are allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 13/13 Comparing Assistant