K C AZAD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner has assailed his prosecution pursuant to the First Information Report No. 4 of 1986 recorded in P.S. (Enforcement) South Zone, Shimla, and prays for quashing thereof.

(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Director of Horticulture in the Horticulture Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. His involvement is for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420,467, 471, 511 and 120-B of the Penal Code besides under Section 5(2)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The basis of the First Information Report is the enquiry report of the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, which consists of two parts. The first part thereof deals with the purchase of barbed-wire and second part deals with the purchase of Sintex Water Storage Tanks (hereinafter referred to as 'Tanks'). As per the prosecution the petitioner is connected with the second part. The allegations against the petitioner are that he sent a letter to all the District Horticulture officers/Plant Protection Officers Himachal Pradesh, appreciating the usefulness of the tanks and asked them to purchase HDPEW tanks from M/s Gupta Pipes Dharampur although there was no requirement from the field offices for the purchase thereof. As many as 122 tanks of different sizes/capacity were purchased by the Field offices costing nearly seven lacs out of which payment of about six lacs had been made to the firm and the balance amount of Rs. 96,337.84 P was withheld under the orders of the Government. The allegation is that the petitioner conspired with the aforesaid Shri P. L. Gupta, Proprietor of the aforesaid firm, a co-accused and he preferred to buy the tanks through rate contract which were very high as compared to the rates already offered to and lying with him and the price prevalent in the market. The petitioner failed to point out the alarming discrepancy in rates to the Government despite being fully aware of the fact that the rates fixed by the Controller of Stores were highly exhorbitant. He along with other co-accused did the act out of the way to oblige and favour M/s Gupta Pipes Dharampur with an ulterior move prompted by consideration of financial gain to themselves. Detailing the above charges with a view to judge whether the relief sought for by the petitioner is available to him or not would be essential in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(3.) Petitioner was approached by Shri P. L. Gupta aforesaid, his co-accused, to accomplish his criminal design of conspiracy and for this purpose he sent his Sales Executive Shri R. M. Kashyap another accused, with letter No. GP-Tanks, dated 25-6-1985 to handover the same to the petitioner on 26-6-1985 who had taken a sumptuous dinner in the Hotel Asia the Dawn, previous night.