B L KHATTRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications have been heard together. The petitioner in both the cases is the same, namely, Sri B. L. Khatri, During the relevant period (1976 to 1978) he was General Manager of Maghahatuburu Iron Ore Project which is owned by National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) a Government of India Undertaking. The said Iron Ore Project is in Bihar itself. Sri Khatri in the capacity of General Manager used to go out on tours to Ranchi, Secundrabad and other places, and was under the rules entitled to certain allowances. While submitting the bills, however, he used to submit inflated bills and charge more than he was entitled to. Two criminal cases one for Ranchi tours and other lor Secundrabad tours have been instituted against him and cognizance has been taken in both of them, in one case under section 420, I. P. C. and in both under sections 468/471 and 420/465 of the Indian Penal Code. Both these applications have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the cognizance in those cases. The informant in both the cases is Sri K. K Bhatacharjee, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B, 1. Ranchi. The case-wise details are given below :- Cr. Misc. No. 2384/80,-According to the F. I. R.(annexure '1' and the charge-sheet, annexure '2' to the petition) he went to Secundrabad (Hyderabad) on 13 occasions during the period 24th September, 1976, to 17th November, 1977. He always stayed there in Hotel Park Lane. On return he used to submit inflated travelling allowance bills (T, A. bills) by committing forgery and thus obtained pecuniary benefit for himself by misusing his official position as public servant. The charge sheet is, however, in respect of only three following instances :-

(2.) It would be advantageous at this stage itself to give the modus operandi of Sri Khatri. As would appear from the counter affidavit, Sri Khatri was entitled, besides the travelling allowance and daily allowance, to charge for accommodation in any hotel upto Rs. 130/- per day, but on all the occasions said above, he had actually paid less than that amount, though in the T. A. bills he showed Rs. 130/-as room rent. In the hotels, besides room rent, he used to purchase cigarettes etc. but he was not actually entitled to charge NMDC for all that. The hotel used to give him bills with breakups of the charges. When he used to pay the hotel he also used to receive from the hotel receipts of payments. Because he was entitled to accommodation charges of Rs. 130/- per day, he used to make some interpolations in the final receipt of the hotel to show that the room charges were at the rate of Rs. 130/- per day, even though actually he used to pay lessor amount as room charges or accommodation charges. The break ups of bills of the hotels, he did not use to give with his T. A. bills. When this matter came to the knowledge of the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), an investigation was made in which the allegations were found to be correct. The interpolations in some of the bills have also been examined by the handwriting expert before submitting the charge-sheet against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner denies to have had any knowledge about the alleged interpolation in the hotel bills and about the submissions and presentations of his T. A. bills. His case is that he always used to be accompanied by his subordinate officers who used to make all arrangements in the hotels and make payments (after taking money from him) and take receipts and bills. It is also said that the receipts used to be given in the office by the staff. The office used to prepare T. A. bills and only after being audited by the Accounts Department the final bills used to be presented before him for signature. It is, therefore, said that it was never with his knowledge that any extra amount was taken from NMDC through his T. A. bills. Further it is said that if any excess was found to have been drawn by him, it was civil liability and he could have been very well asked to pay the amount back, which was never done. The last but not least is a point that the offence, if any, is an offence under section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for brevity P. C. Act), and as such, no prosecution could be launched against him without previous sanction of the competent authority as required by section 6 of the P. C. Act. 1 may here itself mention that it is only the last ground which has been seriously urged at the time of argument.