V BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' in short) praying to call for records in Special Case No. 8 of 2011 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai and to quash the same.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has served as Junior Engineer. The Government of Tamil Nadu by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 699 PW (S2) Department, dated 18-10-1996 has given approval with regard to work, 'formation of a Reservoir across Kamadalar River near Shenbagathope Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District'. The said project has been awarded to M/s. Chandragiri Constructions, a partnership firm. The terms of the agreement entered into in between the parties and accordingly, 40% of the quoted price has to be paid to the contractor on delivery of materials at dam site, 50% has to be paid on erection for the equipments and satisfactory test of erected parts of complete set, the balance has to be paid on final acceptance of the gates after satisfactory commissioning under full reservoir level condition and after issuance of completion certificate. The respondent on the basis of the First Information Report registered in Crime No. 4 of 2007 has conducted investigation and a final report has been filed under Section 120B read with Sections 167, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 109, IPC and also under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109, IPC, wherein the present petitioner has been arrayed as fifth accused. On 23-03-2006, Chief Engineer (General) PWD, has conducted inspection of site and reported that erection of embedded parts for seven gates are found fixed. The petitioner has done his duty properly and there is no deviation on his part. But he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further a departmental enquiry has been conducted and finally, recommended for exonerating the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for herein.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that during the relevant period, the petitioner has served as Junior Engineer and he has done his duty properly. Further, he has not committed any lapse. In the departmental enquiry initiated against him, he has been exonerated from the charges. Under the said circumstances, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and in fact, no materials are available so as to inculpate the petitioner in the offences mentioned in the charges and therefore, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.