DINESH YADAV Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the FIR and criminal proceedings in which the petitioner has been named as accused No. 4, has been questioned. The petitioner seeks a quashing order on the ground that taken as a whole, neither the First Information Report nor the materials or the charge-sheet make out a case against him and that continuing the criminal proceedings in these circumstances would be prejudicial to him.

(2.) Mr. Anurag Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended firstly that the petitioner was never named in the First Information Report. The FIR had alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged that during the relevant time, sometime in 1997-98, one M/s Vijay Kumar and Company was allotted work order by the then Executive Engineer, one Mr. Ahmed Syeed with dense carpeting of the MB Road. The said M/s Vijay and Company and another concern had submitted tenders; the work was allotted to M/s Vijay and Company on account of the lower rates of the work quoted. The whole work order was estimated to Rs. 4,26,526/- but the approval was restricted to Rs. 4 lakhs. It was alleged that as per the agreement, the work had to be executed within the parameters of instructions issued by the MCD. The contractor was to procure fresh supply of bulk Bitumen from Bharat Petroleum or Indian Oil Corporation or Hindustan Petroleum as approved by the Engineer-in- Chief of the MCD.

(3.) The allegations levelled were that the accused concern had a Hot Mix Plant somewhere in Ghaziabad and that certain invoices said to have been issued by IOC, Mathura were furnished by the contractor. It was alleged that the invoices were fraudulent and not genuine. After lodging of the FIR, investigations were conducted and the petitioner, who was not initially named as an accused was subsequently shown in the charge-sheet and recommended for trial as accused No.4.