TUNCAY ALANKUS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 7.11.1998 passed by theSpecial Judge. New Delhi In CC No. 1998 directing framing of charges under Section.s420/409/ 120-BIPC against the petitioners. These petitions are being disposed of bythis common order.

(2.) The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned order and it is notnecessary for .me to repeat the same over and again, yet a brief sketch of it is necessaryto appreciate the contentions raised by the parties. In 1995, the accused personsentered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves the object of which was todefraud the National Fertilizers Limited (for short the NFL) and swindle a.whoppingsum of Rs.l33 crores. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, a contract for the supplyof 200000 M.T. urea worth 38 million US dollars was awarded to a Turkish companyknown as M/s. KARSAN and the entire amount was paid to the said company withoutgetting even an ounce of urea in return. Out of the defrauded amount, the accusedTuncay Alankus paid substantial amount to the accused persons as illegal kickbacks.When the print media highlighted the large dimensions of the said fraud, the matterwas placed before the Board of the NFL at its emergency meeting held on 27.3.1996.The Board directed the E.D. (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry into the matter. Onreceipt of the inquiry report, Shri K.K.Jaiswal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Chemicalsand Fertilisers, Government of India, sent a written report to the Director, CBI, on thebasis of which the FIR was registered on 28.5.1996. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 120- B/409/420 Indian Penal Code read withSection 13(2)/13 (1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused persons. The Special Judge took cognizance upon the charge sheet and issuedprocesses against the petitioners. After entering appearance they agitated variousgrounds to contend that there was no material 'whatsoever to frame charges againstthem. The Special Judge, however, by a detailed and well reasoned order rejected allthose contentions and passed the impugned order deciding to frame the impugnedcharges and try the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended thatthe materials collected by the prosecuting agency do not constitute any offence againstthe petitioners and the learned Special Judge has committed a patent illegality inframing the impugned charges against them which has resulted in flagrant miscarriageofjustice.