AMIT SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the FIR No. CBI: ACB: Imphal, RC02120180003, be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner is a serving officer with the Indian Army. The petitioner was posted at Dimapur and was commanding officer of 50 Coy (Company) ASC (Army Service Corps) (Supply). During his tenure, he had accepted illegal gratification from a local contractor (Sh. Jai Prakash - proprietor of M/s Singh and Singh Cargo and The Carpenters, Dimapur, Nagaland). The said contractor was engaged in supplying edible oil and pulses to 50 Coy ASC (Supply). He had alleged that a sum of Rs. 58,62,198/- had been paid in cash and/or in kind to the petitioner. The same also included a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was alleged to have been paid by the said contractor through banking channels. It was alleged that the said amount was transferred to the account of one Mr Gajender Sharma, maintained at Vijaya Bank, Ramnagar Branch, Delhi (Account No. 601801141000050). It is alleged that Sh. Gajender Sharma was working as the cashier in a company, namely Associated Road Carrier Ltd. At the material time, the petitioner's brother, Sh. Kapil Sharma, was employed as a Manager with the said company. It is alleged that Sh. Kapil Sharma had informed Sh. Gajender Sharma that someone would remit money from his account for the marriage of his sister. Sh. Gajender Sharma had received the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in his bank account and had withdrawn the said amount in two tranches of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. He claimed that he had handed over the said amount to Mr Kapil Sharma.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the CBI has raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition. He submits that the said FIR is registered in Imphal and therefore, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. The allegation of illegal gratification shows the conduct of the petitioner while he was posted in Dimapur. The contractor was engaged in supplying goods at Dimapur and had alleged that illegal gratification was paid in connection with those contracts.