DURYODHAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed for quashing the proceeding in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 89 of 2005 pending in the Court of the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar.

(2.) On the basis of information received by the D.S.P., Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, the aforesaid case was registered for commission of offence under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Petitioner and some others. The allegation in the F.I.R., is that for the purpose of construction of a long composite spur on right embankment of river Devi, an estimate of Rs. 50 lakhs had been prepared by the Executive Engineer, Nimapara Division in February, 1998. The said estimate was sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer, Central Irrigation Circle, Bhubaneswar, who is the Petitioner before this Court, on 26.2.1998 and thereafter administrative approval was accorded by the then Chief Engineer on 21.2.1998. The tender for execution of the work was invited by the Executive Engineer, Nimapara Division in February, 1998 and the tender schedule for the work had been approved by the Petitioner for an amount of Rs. 47,54,639.00. Fifteen persons filed their tenders and the tender submitted by N.R. Pradhan, which was 2.76% less than the estimated cost, was accepted. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that the said N.R. Pradhan, who executed the work as contractor, is the son of the present Petitioner and, therefore, undue favour has been shown to the son of the Petitioner.

(3.) The Learned Counsel, Shri Dutta appearing for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to the technical inspection report submitted by the Executive Engineer, Vigilance Department, Cuttack. In the said report, it is stated that on scrutiny of the estimate, no appreciable irregularities were noticed. It was found from the record that the tender was well competitive and awarding the work in favour of the second lowest bidder Sri N.R. Pradhan on the ground of price preference allowed to Graduate Engineer Contractor is well within executive instruction and, therefore, no irregularities were committed in evaluation of tender. It was contended by Shri Dutta, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was only involved in technical sanction of the project and no irregularities having been found in such technical sanction of awarding the work in favour of the son of the Petitioner, no offence has been committed by the Petitioner and, therefore, the proceeding should be quashed.