PRAMOD CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the accused in case crime No. l572 of 2004, under sections 406 and 409 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur, lodged by respondent No. 4-the present Project Director, Ghazipur. The petitioner was Project Director, Ghazipur at the relevant time. He has come up with a prayer to stay his arrest inconsequence of the said F.I.R.

(2.) The gist of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that on the recommendation of Dr. Kailash Singh, M.L.C., a contract for fixation of 54Sodium Solar Street Lights at the cost of Rs. 64,80,000/- had been given to M/s S.R.J. Solar Energy System Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi out of the M.L.C.n fluid of the said Legislator for the year 2003-2004. Total payment of Rs. 63.555 Lacs was made to the said firm from 7.2.2003 to 21.5,2004 in four instalments which was to the extent of 98% of the total amount, though the supplier had made only a fraction of the supply and that, too, of sub standard quality. On a complaint made by Dr. Kailash Singh, the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, which surfaced the bungling, made an inquiry. Consequently, the F.I.R. came to be lodged by the present Project Director, Ghazipur against Sumit Ranjan Jaina- supplier, the then. Chief Development Officer Daya Shankar, the present petitioner and the Project Officer Sri Ram.

(3.) We have heard Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and the learned A.G.A. from the side of the State. The submission of Sri Misra is that no entrustment of money was ever made to the petitioner. The contract was given to the firm aforesaid on the recommendation of Dr. Kailash Singh, M.L.C., who had also recommended for making 75% payment to the said firm in advance. The petitioner was not even posted at Ghazipur on 7.2.2003 when the first payment was made to the supplier. He never withdrew any amount. The amount was directly paid to the supplier through chouse/Bank drafts, and not by him. The petitioner was not associated with any payment made to the supplier. Ingredients of the offences under sections 406 or 409 I.P.C. are not at all made out against him as per the averments made in the F.I.R and as such he is entitled to the relief of stay of his arrest in consequence of the F.I.R. in question. To support his contentions, he has referred to various annexures filed with the writ petition.