KISHORE CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above named Petitioner has filed the present criminal revision Petition under Sec. 397 read with 401 of the Code of criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dtd. 17/11/2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sundargarh on the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in CTR No.26 of 2014 corresponding to SBP Vig P.S.Case No.44 dtd. 30/6/2012 for alleged commission of offence under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) For the sake of brevity, the factual matrix of the case has been narrated in gist. The Petitioner was serving as a Joint Secretary in the Commerce and Transport Department, Government of Odisha. It has also been mentioned that the Petitioner who had worked in different departments, in different capacities, diligently and sincerely. The service career of the Petitioner has remained unblemished till registration of the Vigilance case. On 30/6/2012 an F.I.R. was lodged against the Petitioner. It appears that the trial has not progressed substantially and such inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial has been impacting the service career of the Petitioner adversely. The F.I.R. registered against the Petitioner by the Vigilance department reveals that the Petitioner during his incumbency for the period from 9/3/2011 to 27/6/2011 as B.D.O., Bargaon Block in connivance with the co-accused namely Kundan Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of M/S Baba Dharsu Traders, Ujalpur, Sundargarh has committed criminal misconduct by showing undue official favour in purchasing 10,000 bags of Konark cement from the abovenamed co-accused thereby the Petitioner has caused a pecuniary loss of Rs.2,05,300.00 and on the equal amount of loss to the Government. It has been alleged that the said amount of loss could have been saved, had the Petitioner been diligent in his conduct. With regard to the procedure adopted in purchasing the cement bag, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the Petitioner without following the proper tender procedure and without further negotiating with the co-accused had issued the supply order on different dates at a higher price, than the price which the co-accused offers to the public. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner has not taken any permission for the purchase. The Petitioner had not invited quotation from the leading cement manufacturers as well as other authorized dealers selling Konark Cement to the general public at a lesser rate.

(3.) Per contra, the case of the Petitioner as narrated in his Petition, is that the Petitioner was functioning as B.D.O., Bargaon for the aforesaid period. For the purpose of development work, the DRDA, Sundargarh vide letter dtd. 16/6/2010 had intimated all B.D.Os with regard to supply of cement and as per the terms of the agreement of the year 2010-11, the price was fixed at Rs.4980.00 per M.T. i.e. Rs.249.00 per bag i.e. price upto Block point including transportation charges, all taxes and duties, loading and unloading charges, irrespective of any fluctuation in price for the agreed period from three suppliers/manufacturers, namely, OCL India Ltd, ACC Ltd. and Ultratech Limited. It has been further stated that pursuant to the aforesaid instructions vide letter dtd. 16/6/2010 under Annexure-2 to the Revision Petition, the Petitioner had placed the indent for procurement of materials for development work for the year 2010-11. Since there was a delay in supply of cement from the cement manufacturing companies, the Petitioner, on submission of willingness for supply of cement by M/s. Baba Dharsu Traders at Rs.248.00 per bag including all taxes, transportation charges, loading and unloading and stacking charges placed the order with above named Supplier by following the official procedure. Such placement of indent is stated to be well within the authority of the Petitioner and in consonance with the guidelines under Annexure-2.