VILAS RAO GHODESWAR Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order on charge dated 16.12.2020, and charge dated 23.12.2020, framed by Special Judge, (CBI05), (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi in CC No.249/2019.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

(3.) Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that the Senior Accounts Officer (A-1) submitted a note for consideration and necessary orders of the petitioner regarding dilapidated condition of the office of PAO (IRLA). The petitioner constituted a committee for taking appropriate action on the proposal. Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued through the website of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and it was affixed on conspicuous places of the Ministry in order to give wide publicity. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Advocate contends that the CPWD Manual would not apply to the present case. He would contend that the fact that no technical member in the committee as stipulated by the CPWD Manual was there in the tender committee cannot lead to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the CPWD Manual is not applicable to the contract. Learned Senior Advocate would state that his argument is further fortified by the fact that there is no statement by any witness on record to suggest that the Department was required to follow the CPWD Manual for awarding the tender for providing suitable working conditions to the staff. He would state that for expenditure, regarding fixtures and furniture, purchase and repairs, the petitioner had full powers for which purpose there was no necessity of getting any approval from the Additional Secretary & Financial Advisor. He would contend that not a single witness has spoken regarding there being any meeting of minds to make out an offence of conspiracy. He would contend that the Court while framing charges has to apply its own mind to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence is made out or not. He would contend that the learned Special Judge (PC Act), (CBI-05), Rouse Avenue District Court has only acted as the mouth piece of the prosecution which it ought not to have done. He would state that in the absence of any material, charges could not have been framed against the petitioner.