Author: Suman Sahani, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Lucknow
Introduction
The case of Dhruva Prasad Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand Through The CBI, decided by the Jharkhand High Court on November 2, 2018, stands as a crucial ruling in the protracted legal saga of the Fodder Scam. This judgment, delivered by Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, delves into the intricate application of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which empowers a court to proceed against any person appearing to have committed an offence, even if they are not arrayed as an accused in the initial charge sheet. The case is particularly significant because it addresses a situation where the investigating agency (CBI), under specific directives from the Supreme Court, had previously concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the petitioner, Dhruva Prasad Ojha, an IPS officer. The judicial review of the trial court’s decision to subsequently summon him as an accused highlights the delicate balance between the prosecution’s initial findings, higher court directives, and the trial court’s inherent power to administer justice. It underscores the stringent conditions required for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., especially when the matter has already been scrutinized at the highest levels of the judiciary and the executive (through the Attorney General’s opinion). This judgment thus serves as a vital precedent concerning the scope and limitations of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the context of high-profile corruption cases with a long investigative history.
Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of this case is deeply intertwined with the infamous Fodder Scam, a multi-crore financial fraud involving the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from the Animal Husbandry Department of Bihar (and later Jharkhand after state bifurcation). The CBI was entrusted with the investigation of these cases under the direct monitoring of the Patna High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court of India.
Dhruva Prasad Ojha, the petitioner, was a distinguished officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) who held several crucial positions within the Vigilance Department of Bihar, including Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Inspector General (IG), Additional Director General, and Director General, during various periods until January 2002. His tenure in these roles placed him squarely within the administrative framework responsible for vigilance and oversight, which became a focal point of the Fodder Scam investigations.
A pivotal aspect of the Fodder Scam
investigations was the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India -Vs. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1996) 6 SCC 500]. This order laid down a specific procedural safeguard: in cases where the CBI investigating officers held differing opinions regarding the implication of an individual, the matter was to be referred to the Attorney General of India for his opinion. This directive was intended to ensure thorough scrutiny and to prevent arbitrary decisions regarding prosecution in such complex cases.
In the context of Dhruva Prasad Ojha, the CBI had, in fact, formed an opinion regarding his involvement. After due consideration, including the opinion of the Solicitor General, which was subsequently concurred with by the Attorney General of India, the CBI reached a crucial decision: there was insufficient material to warrant his prosecution in the Fodder Scam cases. Instead, the CBI recommended that departmental action be initiated against him.
This decision, notably, was presented to and accepted by the Supreme Court of India through an order dated February 1, 2002. This acceptance by the Apex Court effectively placed a judicial imprimatur on the decision not to prosecute Ojha based on the then-existing evidence.
Despite this definitive stance taken by the CBI, confirmed by the Attorney General, and accepted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner, Dhruva Prasad Ojha, was subsequently brought back into the fold of the accused. By an order dated December 23, 2017, the learned Special Judge-VII, C.B.I. (A.H.D. Scam), Ranchi, invoked powers conferred under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and directed that Dhruva Prasad Ojha be arraigned as an accused. The cognizance was taken against him under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (criminal misconduct by a public servant). This decision of the Special Judge became the subject matter of the challenge before the Jharkhand High Court in the instant case (Cr. M.P. No. 119 of 2018).
It is also pertinent to note that another similar petition, Cr. M.P. No. 120 of 2018, filed by Sukhdeo Singh, was heard jointly with Dhruva Prasad Ojha’s petition, as both cases involved common legal questions regarding the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the context of the Fodder Scam.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue before the Jharkhand High Court was:
Whether the Special Judge was justified in exercising powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon Dhruva Prasad Ojha as an accused, despite the CBI having previously concluded, with the concurrence of the Attorney General and acceptance by the Supreme Court, that there was insufficient material to prosecute him?
This overarching issue encompassed several sub-issues:
What is the scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C., particularly the degree of satisfaction required by a trial court to summon an additional accused?
How does a prior decision by the investigating agency (CBI), supported by the Attorney General’s opinion and accepted by the Supreme Court, impact the trial court’s power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.?
Can the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. be exercised based on the same set of evidence and materials that were previously considered and led to a decision not to prosecute?
Was there any fresh or additional evidence adduced during the trial that warranted the summoning of Dhruva Prasad Ojha as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.?
Observations of the Court
In its judgment, the Jharkhand High Court made key observations while examining the arraignment of Dhruva Prasad Ojha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the Fodder Scam case:
Reliance on Hardeep Singh Case: The Court followed the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be used sparingly, only when strong evidence justifies it.
High Threshold of Evidence: It reiterated that summoning a person under Section 319 requires more than just a prima facie case; the evidence must show a strong possibility of conviction.
Trial Evidence Requirement: The Court emphasized that such power can only be exercised based on evidence presented during the trial—not on pre-trial investigative material.
Finality of Earlier Decision: The CBI’s decision not to prosecute Ojha, backed by the Attorney General and accepted by the Supreme Court, carried legal weight and finality.
Lack of New Evidence: There was no fresh or compelling evidence presented during the trial to justify revisiting the earlier decision not to prosecute Ojha.
Consistency with Past Ruling: The Court had earlier quashed Ojha’s arraignment in a related case, reflecting a consistent judicial stance.
Protection from Harassment: The judgment stressed the importance of shielding individuals from repeated and baseless prosecutions once they’ve been legally cleared, absent new substantial evidence.
Decision of the Court
Based on its observations and the application of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh (Supra), coupled with the unique factual background of the Fodder Scam investigations and the Supreme Court’s directives, the Jharkhand High Court arrived at the following decision:
The Jharkhand High Court allowed the petition filed by Dhruva Prasad Ojha (Cr. M.P. No. 119 of 2018).
The impugned order dated December 23, 2017, passed by the learned Special Judge-VII, C.B.I. (A.H.D. Scam), Ranchi, which had directed the arraignment of Dhruva Prasad Ojha as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was quashed.
The connected petition filed by Sukhdeo Singh (Cr. M.P. No. 120 of 2018) was also similarly allowed, for similar reasons.
In essence, the High Court held that the Special Judge erred in exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against Dhruva Prasad Ojha, as the conditions for its invocation were not met, particularly in light of the prior detailed scrutiny and decision by the CBI, the Attorney General, and the Supreme Court.
Legal Jargon
Section 319 Cr.P.C.: Allows a court to summon a new person as accused during trial if strong evidence appears against them.
Arraignment: Formally charging someone in court.
Cognizance: When a court officially takes notice of an offence to proceed further.
Prima Facie Case: Basic evidence that looks sufficient to proceed, but not enough for conviction.
Fodder Scam: A major scam in 1990s Bihar involving embezzlement of government funds.
CBI: India’s top investigative agency.
Attorney General of India: Chief legal advisor to the government; his legal opinions carry significant authority.
Impugned Order: The order being challenged (here, the Special Judge’s order dated Dec 23, 2017).
Quashed: When a court sets aside or nullifies an order.
Constitution Bench: A larger bench of the Supreme Court that decides key legal interpretations.
RC Case: A case registered by the CBI for formal investigation.
Adduced Evidence: Evidence presented during the trial.
Ex-facie: Something clear just by looking at it.
The Proof Relied Upon by the High Court:
Hardeep Singh Judgment: The Court strictly applied this Supreme Court ruling, which requires stronger evidence than usual to summon someone under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and it must come during the trial—not just from investigation files.
CBI & Attorney General’s Stand (2002): The CBI, with the AG’s agreement, decided not to prosecute Ojha, and the Supreme Court accepted this. The High Court viewed this as a strong legal backing against further prosecution.
No Fresh Evidence: The Special Judge’s order summoning Ojha seemed to rely on old material, not new trial evidence—failing the requirement of Section 319.
Past Consistent Judgment: The High Court had previously quashed a similar order against Ojha in another related case, showing a consistent view on lack of evidence.
Petitioners’ Arguments: They effectively argued that the high threshold under Section 319 wasn’t met, especially in the absence of new evidence and considering the SC-endorsed earlier decision.
Conclusion
The judgment in Dhruva Prasad Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand Through The CBI on November 2, 2018, by the Jharkhand High Court marks a significant development in the Fodder Scam cases and provides critical clarity on the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The Court’s decision to quash the Special Judge’s order arraigning Dhruva Prasad Ojha as an accused was rooted in two fundamental pillars:
Strict Interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C.: The High Court meticulously applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh, emphasizing that the power under Section 319 is an extraordinary one, to be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong evidence adduced during the trial that creates a “strong suspicion” or a “reasonable prospect of conviction” against the person sought to be summoned. It is not merely a re-examination of prior investigative material.
Respect for Prior Judicial and Executive Decisions: Crucially, the Court gave due weight to the fact that the CBI, after a detailed investigation and in compliance with Supreme Court directives, had decided not to prosecute Dhruva Prasad Ojha, and this decision was endorsed by the Attorney General and accepted by the Supreme Court itself. To allow a trial court to summon him as an accused on the same, or substantially similar, material without new and compelling evidence emerging during the trial would undermine judicial finality and the integrity of the investigative process monitored by the Apex Court.
FAQS
Q1: What was the central legal question addressed by the Jharkhand High Court in this case?
A1: The central legal question was whether the Special Judge was justified in using Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Dhruva Prasad Ojha as an accused, given that the CBI, with the Attorney General’s concurrence and Supreme Court’s acceptance, had previously decided not to prosecute him due to insufficient evidence.
Q2: Why was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab significant for this case?
A2: The Hardeep Singh judgment was significant because it is a Constitution Bench ruling that definitively clarified the scope and conditions for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. It established a higher threshold of satisfaction for summoning an additional accused than a mere prima facie case and emphasized that such summoning must be based on “evidence adduced during the inquiry or trial,” not just investigative material. The Jharkhand High Court heavily relied on these principles.
Q3: What was the role of the Attorney General of India in Dhruva Prasad Ojha’s background in the Fodder Scam?
A3: As per Supreme Court directives in the Fodder Scam cases, if CBI officers had differing opinions on an individual’s implication, the matter was to be referred to the Attorney General. In Ojha’s case, the CBI, with the Attorney General’s concurrence, had opined that there was insufficient material to prosecute him, recommending only departmental action.12 This decision was accepted by the Supreme Court.
Q4: What was the “proof” or key justification used by the High Court to quash the Special Judge’s order?
A4: The key justifications were: (1) The strict interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. as laid down in Hardeep Singh, requiring strong evidence adduced during the trial; (2) The prior definitive decision by the CBI, concurred by the Attorney General, and accepted by the Supreme Court, to not prosecute Ojha due to insufficient evidence; and (3) The implied lack of any fresh, compelling evidence adduced during the trial that warranted a change in the earlier decision.
Q5: What does it mean for an order to be “quashed”?
A5: When an order is “quashed,” it means it is annulled, made void, or set aside by a higher court. Legally, it ceases to have any effect. In this case, the Special Judge’s order to arraign Dhruva Prasad Ojha was nullified.
Q6: How does this judgment impact the understanding of Section 319 Cr.P.C.?
A6: This judgment reinforces the understanding that Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power to be used cautiously. It cannot be used to endlessly re-examine old material, especially when higher authorities, including the Supreme Court, have already reviewed and accepted a decision against prosecution. It underscores the need for new, compelling evidence emerging during the trial to invoke this provision.
Q7: What was the significance of the Fodder Scam investigation being monitored by the Supreme Court?
A7: The Supreme Court’s monitoring of the Fodder Scam investigation ensured a higher level of scrutiny and accountability. Its directives, such as the requirement for the Attorney General’s opinion in cases of differing CBI views, added a layer of judicial oversight and legitimacy to the investigative process, which played a crucial role in Ojha’s case.
