R.C. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of the criminal proceedings filed by State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Bhopal against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 420, 477, 120B, 430 of IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act" for brevity) which is registered as special case No.lI08 before the Special Judge, Bhind.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in the year 1993 the applicant at the relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD), Bhind, during that period, a tender was issued for earth work of village Jamsara and tender of co -accused Veer Singh Tomar had been accepted and he had also completed earth work in the year 1994 and payment was also made by the department to him on 2804.1994. Thereafter, it is alleged that the concerning contractor Veer Singh Tomar had filed an application in the office of Chief Engineer (North) PWD, Gwalior that at the time of earth work of village Jamsara road no payment of watering and rolling work has been made to him in spite of his repeated prayer by the Executive Engineer, Bhind. On this application, as per the condition of the agreement, the dispute of work and payment had been considered and decided by Chief Engineer (North) PWD, Gwalior and by letter No.401/Claim/1/95/13177 dated 14.10.1997 Chief Engineer, Gwalior instructed the Executive Engineer, Bhind to make payment to the contractor Veer Singh Tomar for the work of watering and rolling in the concerning road. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Chief Engineel, Gwalior, the Executive Engineer, Bhind had made part payment to the contractor Veer Singh Tomar. This payment had been made by Executive Engineer in the year 1997, at that time, the applicant -accused was not working at Bhind and he was posted as Executive Engineer in Chhatarpur. He had not made aforesaid payment to the contractor Veer Singh Tomar. Subsequently, a complaint had been lodged by some unknown persons to the Economic Offence Bureau in the year 2002 for the false payment to the contractor, on which basis, relevant inquiry was conducted by the competent investigating officer and found that this payment was made by the then Executive Engineer A.K. Saxena and K.K. Samaria and the payment was made on the report submitted by Assistant Engineer, R.K. Verma and Sub -Engineer, Pradeep Sharma who had made entry in work book about verification of watering and rolling work done by the contractor Veer Singh Tomar. On investigation, investigating officer also found that at one point of time the present applicant during his posting at Chhatarpur had also made recommendation for the payment to the contractor Veer Singh Tomar for the work of watering and rolling in Jamsara. After preliminary inquiry, case has been registered against ten accused persons including the present applicant R.C. Sharma and after investigation, chargesheet under sections 420, 467, 477 and 120B of IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act has been filed before the Special Judge, Bhind. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid offence and filing of the charge -sheet, applicant came up before this Court for quashment of proceedings by this petition under section 482 of CrPC.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the applicant that admittedly when the applicant was posted as Executive Engineer, Bhind he had called a tender only for earth work of village Jamsara and for that work payment had been made during his tenure. At that time, contractor had not claimed any payment for watering and rolling work on the aforesaid road. Thereafter, he was transferred to Gwalior and thereafter to Chhatarpur as Executive Engineer. Thereafter, contractor made his claim for payment of watering and rolling work for which no claim had been made before the applicant when he was working as Executive Engineer at Bhind. The investigating officer has also not seized any letter sent by this applicant, on which basis, this can be found proved that at any point of time the present applicant while working as Executive Engineer in Chhatarpur had made recommendation for payment to the contractor Veer Singh Tomar as has been pointed out in the charge -sheet by the investigating officer at page 3 of the charge -sheet and if no such documentary evidence is available on record then only on the basis of oral statement of some witnesses that applicant had also recommended for the payment to the contractor cannot be relied upon and on which basis the applicant cannot be found involved in any conspiracy or cheating for the false payment to the contractor concerned. It is also apparent that contractor raised a dispute with regard to the payment of the work which he had done in Jamsara road. As per the condition of the clause 29 of the Contract, if any dispute arose with regard to the payment of any work done by the contractor then the dispute would be considered by the competent authority, the Superintending Engineer. After consideration of the entire record, the Superintending Engineer by letter dated 14.10.1997 ordered for payment of amount to the concerning contractor Veer Singh Tomar and if that being so, the applicant cannot be held liable for any false payment to the contractor which has been ordered as per clause 29 of the Contract of Arbitration clause as per the direction and order passed by the Chief Engineer. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant stressed upon the fact that on perusal of the entire paper submitted with the charge -sheet, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant for trial under sections 420, 467, 477 and 120B of IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act and hence prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings to the extent of present applicant under the inherent powers conferred under section 482 of CrPC to this Court.