R B SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring the aforesaid petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are public servants, have approached this Court seeking order(s) setting aside and quashing the First Information Report, which has resulted into registration of Crime No.31/07 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471,420 and 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against them. Both the petitioners, namely, K.K. Shrivastava and R.N. Karaiya were appointed originally in the Public Health Engineering Department and subsequently were sent on deputation to the Municipal Corpn., on the posts of Assistant Engineers. At the relevant time, they were holding additional charge of Executive Engineers in the Maintenance Div. No.1. Gwalior. The petitioner Ajaya Pandvia at the relevant time was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Health Engineering under Municipal Corporation Gwalior whereas petitioner R.B. Shrivastava was working as In-Charge (Accounts) in the PHE under Municipal Corporation Gwalior.

(2.) Brief facts of the case for consideration and decision of these petitions are that complainant Sudhir Singh made a written complaint to Lokayukt Organization, Bhopal about commission of corruption in repairs of tube-wells already existed in the various areas under Municipal Corporation Gwalior. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was lodged and the investigation was conducted. After investigation, it was gathered that there was an attempt made to cause embezzlement of Rs. 9940/- by the accused in conspiracy with others in carrying out the work of tube-wells and hand-pumps of the areas in question. Consequently, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners-accused before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Gwalior for commission of the alleged offences. Hence, these petitions for quashment of the same.

(3.) The grounds for assailing the FIR and the subsequent investigation are that on 24 th July 2003, the quotations were invited for maintenance of tube-wells in various places in Municipal areas. On invitation, the tenders/quotations for repairs of tube-wells and placement of hand-pumps in place of unrepairable tube wells, were received by the office of Public Health Engineering Section No. 1 working under the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. By adopting the prescribed procedure in the department, the tender of lowest amount was accepted and work order was issued to the contractor of lowest rate on 30 th December 2003. The tendered work for repairs of tube-wells and placement of hand-pumps on various places were carried out by the contractor under the supervision of Sub Engineers. After completion of the tendered work, the final bills were submitted by the contractor. By passing through the various audit and Accounts Officers, bill were sent by the Executive Engineers to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Gwalior M.P. No payments of bills was made to the contractor by the Municipal Corporation Gwalior. As per law, the payment was to be made by the Municipal Corporation through Commissioner. It is further stated that the allegations made against the petitioners regarding violation of the provisions contemplated in Clauses 4.017 and 4.18 of the Act are absolutely false. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is prayed that by allowing the petitions, the FIR lodged by the Police Establishment Bhopal vis-a-vis the investigation and the charge-sheet filed before the trial Special Judge be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Goli @ Shada Devi Vs. State of MP,2009 2 MPLJ 116, Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vs.Ram Gopal Poddar @ others, 2010 10 SCC 673, State of A.P. Vs. Bajdoori Kanthaiah & others, 2009 1 SCC 114, State of Maharastra Vs Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri & others, 1996 AIR(SC) 722, State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & others, 2004 1 SCC 691, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs K.M. Sharan, 2008 4 SCC 471, State of Andra Pradesh Vs. Aravapally Venkanna & others, 2009 13 SCC 443.MS and Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs. State, 1998 AIR(SC) 128.