D C MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of present petition are seeking a relief of quashing and setting aside the FIR being RC 9(A)/1997 ABD dated 22.01.1997 registered with CBI Gandhinagar Police Station, as also the order passed by the learned Special Judge C.B.I. Court No. 5, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, dated 30.07.2009 below Exh.77 and all consequential further proceedings qua petitioners.

(2.) The brief facts are as under :

(3.) The brief facts of the prosecution is that on the basis of information received from C.B.I., Ahmedabad Office, the F.I.R. Came to be lodged in which in substance the case is that one Mr. H.C. Malhotra while working as Director (Marketing) KRIBHCO and other officials of KRIBHCO entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Mr. M.R. Harshe, General Manager (Materials) and others of M/s. Deepak Nitrite Ltd., Baroda (M/s. DNL) during the year 1994-95 in respect of supply of ammonia quantity at the discounted price and thereby has caused a wrongful pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.33.47 lakhs to KRIBHCO. The allegation which is reflected in the FIR that the above named officers, though being public servants, allowed the discount of Rs.1,000/- per metric tone instead of only Rs.150/- per metric tone, when the rate of ammonia was Rs.6,400/- per metric tone around the month of July, 1994. It is the case of prosecution that on 13.02.1995, the rate of ammonia was raised from Rs.6,400/- to Rs.7,000/- per metric tone in the year 1995-96, even then the firm was allowed to lift ammonia by giving discount of Rs.1,000/- per metric tone on the old rate i.e. Rs.6,400/- and in this way from 13.02.1995 onwards a pecuniary advantage of Rs.1,600/- per metric tone was allowed to the said firm by abusing the position of being a public servant without intimating the enhanced rate of ammonia to the plant at Surat. It was alleged in the FIR that the KRIBHCO plant at Surat can maintain a maximum stock of 4,000 metric tone at a plant and though on 31.03.1995 the stock of ammonia had come down within the permissible limit, even though the special discount as referred to above was given to the firm M/s. Deepak Nitrite Ltd., Baroda to lift ammonia up to the end of May, 1995 and therefore, it is alleged in the FIR that during the passage of time from June, 1994 to May, 1995 the officials of KRIBHCO have given a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.33.47 lakhs approximately to the firm and thereby cheated KRIBHCO by abusing their position as public servants being in conspiracy with the officials of M/s. Deepak Nitrite Ltd., Baroda and by asserting this the offence came to be registered under Section 120(b) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and after investigation the charge-sheet also came to be filed with respect to this very complaint, and it is in this regard the petitioners have approached the Court concerned initially by way of an application for seeking discharge from the prosecution, which was registered as application below Exh.77. The said application came up for consideration before the Special Judge, CBI Court No.5 at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, who by a judgment and order dated 30.07.2009 was pleased to reject the application. A fact may be taken note of that the said application was filed by original accused nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. However, the present petition is related to original accused nos.6 and 7. These accused persons have preferred a Special Criminal Application against the said order, which is registered as Special Criminal Application No.1660 of 2009 and so far as other accused are concerned, they appeared to have filed cognate petitions referred to above. This petition was originally directed against an order of rejection on discharge application below Exh.77, but then during the course of time on 16.06.2011 the amendment was carried out, whereby the petition was amended and the relevant clause also came to be inserted for seeking quashment of the FIR dated 22.01.1997 and subsequent proceedings thereunder, and it is this amendment, which has extended the scope of petition. As said earlier, this petition was entertained by the Court and in the aforesaid background, the petition has come up for final disposal.