A K JAIN Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition challenges the order on charge dated 26.8.1995 against the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Jain and Ms. Rohini Prakash, as well as against Mr. R.C. Bhargava, for offence under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also for substantive offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The story disclosed in the charge-sheet is as under:

(2.) The learned trial Court opined that the evidence collected, prima facie, showed that certain vehicles which rolled out of the factory at unincreased prices were diverted to M/s. Rohan Motors, Gurgaon though they should have been sent to the MSS (D) and these were meant to be supplied to the general category customers. 12 out of these vehicles were given to direct billing customers and to that extent 12 persons of the general category suffered. The trial Court has also remarked in its order that it also appeared that the seniority in allotment of vehicles to direct billing customers was ignored in certain cases; that certain manipulations were done because the invoices were changed and allotment was withheld as deposed by Ms. Renu Sharma and that those who came in contact with Mr. R.C.Bhargava got the benefit of prices prevailing before 24.7.1991. The defence relied upon the statement of witness, Partha Barooah, who said that there was no irregularity on the part of Shri R.C. Bhargava who was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of MUL and he had his discretion in giving preference to customers who were entitled to get preference over the general category. The Trial Court found that there was a strong suspicion which was sufficient to frame charges against the accused and, therefore, proceeded to frame charges as mentioned above.

(3.) It is submitted in the revision petition that the Trial Court did not have any material on the basis of which it could be said that there was any suspicion against the revision petitioners. The trial Court in the impugned order says that during investigation it was found that certain vehicles which rolled out of the factory on unincreased prices were diverted to M/s. Rohan Motors Gurgaon instead of being delivered to MSS (D). To this extent there is no dispute inasmuch as the revision petitioners also admit that 19 stock transferred vehicles which rolled out of the factory were sent to M/s. Rohan Motors. But that by itself does not constitute any offence. What the prosecution has to show is that the present petitioners had committed any offence in the matter of actual allotment of these vehicles.