KARMAVEER SINGH Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by Special Judge (Printing & Stationary, Embezzlement Cases) and CBI Cases, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 201 IPC, and for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The brief facts of the case are that Divisional Engineer (Yojna) on behalf of the GMTD, Sikar, had invited tenders for fifteen works of laying underground cables in SDCA, Sikar. One of the conditions of Technical Bid were that the successful bidder would give a bank guarantee and would deposit 10% of the tender amount. The contract was to be signed between the BSNL and the successful bidder on the basis of the bank guarantee. It is only after the bank guarantee was submitted that the work order would be issued. According to the CBI, Mr. Prakash Choudhary, the proprietor of M/s. Maharaja Construction, Sikar had submitted six bank guarantees to the petitioner. It was the petitioner's duty to verify the authenticity of the bank guarantees. However, without doing so, the petitioner recommended the case of Mr. Prakash Choudhary. Subsequently, the work order was issued in favour of Mr. Prakash Choudhary. After a thorough investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet against petitioner and Mr. Prakash Choudhary. It is also filed a charge-sheet against other officers of BSNL. Vide order dated 7.10.2009, the learned Judge framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(2.) Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that it was not the duty of the petitioner to verify the authenticity of the bank guarantees submitted by Mr. Prakash Choudhary. Although at the relevant time, he was the Divisional Engineer (Yojna) but his job was mere clerical in nature in the sense he merely forwarded the papers to the authorities. Secondly, on the fateful day, he was on leave. Thirdly, the prosecution is not justified in claiming that Prakash Choudhary had access to his life upon an instruction issued by the petitioner to the Class IV employees. According to the learned counsel, the Clerk or the Class IV employees could be influenced by Mr. Prakash Choudhary. Therefore, the petitioner had no role to pay in facilitating Mr. Prakash Choudhary's entry into his office and in displacing the fake guarantee papers with authentic bank guarantee papers. Hence, according to the learned counsel, no offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 201 IPC is made out. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in framing charges for the aforementioned offences.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. T.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the CBI, has strenuously contended that the jurisdiction of the trial Court while framing the charges is limited one. Although it can sift through the evidence, but at the stage of charge, it cannot consider the probable defence, which may be raised by the offender during the course of the trial. Secondly, that the learned Judge has passed a detailed order dealing with some of the contentions raised by the petitioner and has rejected the same. The learned Judge has also relied on the statement of some of the witnesses in order to justify the framing of the charge under Section 120-B read with Section 420, 201 IPC, Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.