1. Heard the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi as Special Case No. 13 of 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same and similar allegations against the petitioner, pertaining to the same transaction, two First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered, contrary to the settled legal position in law. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second FIR, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition, relates to preliminary enquires bearing Nos. 36/09 and 43/09 which were registered on being ordered by the Vigilance Commissioner of Cabinet Vigilance Department to make enquiries into the allegation of irregularities committed by the Department of Agriculture in purchase of seeds, equipment, vermin-compost, micronutrients etc. amounting to Rs. 461.81 lakhs. It is further submitted that both the enquiries being PE No. 36/09 and PE No. 43/09 are almost similar hence, the said two enquires were ordered to be enquired together. The second FIR pertains to the Advertisement No. 21512 dated 13.02.2008, wherein, expression of interest was invited for supply of vermin compost, bio-fertilizer, micronutrient etc. and the allegation is that the Minister bypassing the approval of the Cabinet, issued several State Orders and the tender was not invited according to Finance Department circular and the material was purchased at higher rate from firms and the evidences collected during the preliminary enquiry, support the charges of offences committed by the petitioner and the co-accused persons and separate allegations are dealt with respect to individual firms namely, M/s. Pratik Biotech, M/s. NCCF, Ranchi, M/s. Anshul Agro Chemical, Bangalore in detail in the said First Information Report. It is further alleged that the said firms supplied vermin compost without quality test of the materials prior to the supply and as such, the said firms have also been made accused and upon lodging the FIR, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 has been registered.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that for the selfsame offence, prior to the said FIR, Complaint Case No. 2 of 2009 was lodged on 28.01.2009, by a private person which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi basing upon which, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case No. 15 of 2009 was registered and the photocopy of the certified copy of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 is annexed as Annexure 2 of the brief.

5. It is next submitted that the common Investigating Officer of the cases served notice dated 07.04.2011 upon the petitioner to submit his defence statement in the said Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 as well as P.E. Case Nos. 36 of 2009 and 43 of 2009. It is then submitted that the same Investigating Officer was entrusted with the investigation of the second FIR being the FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of. 2013 also It is further submitted that the allegations made in the first FIR relates to purchase of seeds vide letter bearing No. 1583 dated 02.09.2003 coupled with the allegation of the same in financial years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 and also there is further allegation in the first FIR regarding promotion of vegetable products carried out vide letter No. 42 dated 29.09.2005 under which scheme, the Agri Bio-zone Scheme Centre (A.B.C.) was required to be developed and the said scheme is for the period of 2005 and there is reference of offence having been committed in respect of Contingent Crop Scheme carried out vide letter No. 2084 dated 13.09.2005 by investing an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,20,44,200/- though the said scheme was never given to the farmers and this scheme is for the period of 2005.

6. It is further submitted that there is further allegation of the offence having been committed by the petitioner and co-accused in respect of "SHANKAR DHAN SEED KRAY YOJNA" of the year 2006 pursuant to the Government Order vide letter No. 22 dated 23.06.2006 and letter No. 1953 dated 26.06.2006. It is further submitted that the allegations in the first FIR also has reference of the offences having been committed in respect of following schemes:

(i) BEEJ BINIMAYAN KARYAKARAM in which the purchase and supply of the seeds of vegetable and foodgrains by the firm namely M/s. NEFADE and M/s. NERAMAKE was to be done.

(ii) ZAIVIK KHETI VIKASH YOJNA implemented vide letter No. 02 dated 16.06.2005.

7. It is further submitted that the offences involved in the first FIR also relates to the offences in respect of supply order given by the accused persons vide order bearing No. 792 dt. 12.04.2007, to M/s. NEFADE and M/s. NERAMAKE for supply of vegetable seeds including the supply order relating to paddy seeds, HPS-III. It is submitted that the petitioner has been released on regular bail vide order dated 16.04.2012 passed in BA No. 946 of 2012 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case relating to the first FIR.

8. It is next submitted that in respect of the first FIR vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019, charge-sheet has been submitted on 06.01.2012 while keeping the investigation open. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 [LQ/SC/2013/382] : [2013 (2) JLJR (SC) 477], paragraphs 37, 38 and 58.3 of which reads as under:

"37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T. Antony [(2001) 6 SCC 181 [LQ/SC/2001/1369] : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] [LQ/SC/2001/1369] , this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross-case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Xxxxxxx".

"38. Mr. Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony [(2001) 6 SCC 181 [LQ/SC/2001/1369] : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] [LQ/SC/2001/1369] submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati--a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court: (1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292 [LQ/SC/2004/1015] : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211], (2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254 [LQ/SC/2010/883] : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] [LQ/SC/2010/882] , (3) China Shivraj v. State of A.P. [(2010) 14 SCC 444 [LQ/SC/2010/1296] : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757 [LQ/SC/2010/1296] : AIR 2011 SC 604 [LQ/SC/2010/1296] ], and (4) C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [ (2010) 9 SCC 567 [LQ/SC/2010/900] : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402]. In C. Muniappan [(2010) 9 SCC 567 [LQ/SC/2010/900] : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR."

"58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of the court and where during further investigation, he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences." (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that it is a settled principle of law that second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the same transaction, is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India as there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Investigating Officer after filing the charge-sheet comes into possession of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR rather, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of the court and if during further investigation, the Investigating Officer collects further evidence, oral or documentary, the Investigating Officer is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 [LQ/SC/2001/1369] : [2001 (2) JLJR (SC) 550] as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of T.N., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567, [LQ/SC/2010/900] paragraph 37 of which reads as under:

"37. The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 could not be clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple reason that if the cases are considered, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram, VAO (PW-87), we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed (see T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 [LQ/SC/2001/1369] : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048]) [LQ/SC/2001/1369] ." (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, it is submitted the said second FIR vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 be quashed.

10. Learned Special PP vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 and submits that contention of the petitioner that FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013, is for the same offence or for that matter, different offences committed in the course of same transaction or a fall out of the first occurrence is out and out false. It is then submitted that as the two First Information Reports relates to entirely different matters of corruption in purchase of separate items in separate period of time, by the separate transactions and by separate advertisement and thus the 2 matters are in no way related to each other in any manner so there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd corrupt practice adopted in a different tender process long after the first corrupt practice is the fallout of the first corrupt practice. It further submitted by learned Spl. PP that as has been mentioned in the writ petition by the petitioner himself upon oath as well as is evident from the contents of the complaint which upon being referred to the Vigilance Bureau now renamed as Anti-Corruption Bureau under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Vigilance P.S. 11 of 2009 has been registered, relates to purchase of seeds and ancillary items to seeds and involves a defalcation of Rs. 46.10 crores and the same relates to the period of 2003-2007 whereas the FIR of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 relates to bio-fertilizer and vermin compost and which involves the defalcation of 461.81 lakhs during the period of 2007-2008 and also involves larger conspiracy as is evident from the involvement of more number of accused persons than the accused persons of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009. So by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the offences involved in the FIR of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 and 12 of 2013 are in respect of the same offence or different offences committed in the same transaction or for that matter a fallout of the first occurrence.

11. It is next submitted by learned Spl. PP that there is no quarrel in respect of the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) as also the other cases relied upon by the petitioner that second FIR in respect of the offence or different offences committed in course of the same transaction is not impermissible and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India but the said principle of law is not applicable in the present case as the offences involved in the two First Information Reports as already indicated above, are entirely two different offences and not even the offence committed in the course of the same transaction nor the 2nd offence is the fallout of the first occurrence. It is further submitted that as has been mentioned in the writ petition itself, the letters in respect of which offences were committed, were of different numbers and of different period of time. It is then submitted by learned Special PP that what is common to the two offences are, that some of the accused persons including the petitioner are but even all the accused persons are not common as in the FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013, besides the petitioner and apart from the two other co-accused persons, who are also the accused persons of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009, M/s. NCCF, Ranchi, M/s. Anshul Agro Chemical, Bangalore and M/s. Pratik Biotech Company are also accused, hence, it is submitted that as the FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 and FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009, do not relate to either the same offence or different offences relating to same transaction.

12. It is also submitted by learned Spl. PP that the charge-sheet submitted in respect of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 is in respect of offence committed regarding seeds only and not regarding bio-fertilizer. It is further submitted by learned Spl. PP that after submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner only in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009, the case of the petitioner has been split up and has been numbered a Special Case No. 15(A) of 2009 and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A/120B of IPC and Section 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is lastly submitted that this petition being without any merit be dismissed.

13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 [LQ/SC/2004/1015] : [2004 (4) JLJR (SC) 79] a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider T.T. Antony (supra) and held that if on further investigation of the complaint it is found that there is a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then a further investigation culminating in another complaint is permissible by observing thus in para-21 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"21. From the above it is clear that even in regard to a complaint arising out of a complaint on further investigation if it was found that there was a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then a further investigation under the court culminating in another complaint is permissible." [Ed--Paras 21 and 22 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./86/2004 dated 15.10.2004.]"

Now coming to the facts of this case this court finds that it has been categorically mentioned in the charge-sheet of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 submitted against the petitioner, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 6 page 257-260 of the brief, that the petitioner has defalcated about ` 13 crores of vegetable seeds as the vegetable seeds have been purchased from the institutions which do not produce seeds and he said charge-sheet is confined to the purchase of seeds only and there is no reference of any bio-fertilizer or vermin compost in the said charge-sheet nor there is any reference of any supplier of bio-fertilizer or vermin compost who have been made accused of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013. The First Information Report of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 on the other hand contains allegations relates to corrupt practices adopted in the process regarding purchase of bio-fertilizer and vermin compost and which involves the defalcation of 461.81 lakhs during the period of 2007-2008. The FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 pertains to the Advertisement No. 21512 dated 13.02.2008, wherein, expression of interest was invited for supply of vermin compost, bio-fertilizer, micronutrient etc. and the allegation is that the Minister bypassing the approval of the Cabinet, issued several State Orders and the tender was not invited according to Finance Department circular and the material was purchased at higher rate from firms and the evidences collected during the preliminary enquiry, support the charges of offences committed by the petitioner and the co-accused persons and separate allegations are dealt with respect to individual firms namely, M/s. Pratik Biotech, M/s. NCCF, Ranchi, M/s. Anshul Agro Chemical, Bangalore in detail in the said First Information Report. It is further alleged that the said firms supplied vermin compost without quality test of the materials prior to the supply and as such, the said firms have also been made accused whereas Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2009 has been registered relating to purchase of seeds and ancillary items to seeds and involves a defalcation of Rs. 46.10 crores and the same relates to the period of 2003-2007 and is regarding purchase of seeds vide letter bearing No. 1583 dated 02.09.2003 coupled with the allegation of the same nature in financial years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 and also there is further allegation in the first FIR regarding promotion of vegetable products carried out vide letter No. 42 dated 29.09.2005 under which scheme, the Agri Bio-zone Scheme Centre (A.B.C.) was required to be developed and the said scheme is for the period of 2005 and there is reference of offence having been committed in respect of Contingent Crop Scheme carried out vide letter No. 2084 dated 13.09.2005 by investing an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,20,44,200/- though the said scheme was never given to the farmers and this scheme is for the period of 2005.

14. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court is of the considered view that it will not be proper at this stage to quash the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013, accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.

15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.