ATUL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners of both the present petitions are accused in Sessions Case No.02/2013 (State of Rajasthan v. Shivnarayan & Ors.) pending before the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases Alwar and have challenged a common order dtd. 13/2/2024 dismissing their applications filed under Sec. 217 Cr.P.C. and thereby refusing to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination by petitioners, after addition/alteration of charges against them. Thus, in both petitions, order under challenge is common and identical issue has been raised, hence, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decide by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated, factual matrix of the case, as culled out from the record and not in dispute to the extent that on the basis of news item, published in Daily Newspaper "Alwar Jharokha", in month of March, 2000, a complaint was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short "ACB") and investigation was initiated. The complaint was in respect of allegations of connivance between officials of the Public Health Engineering Department (for short "PHED") and other persons to create bogus firms and thereby accepting tenders from such bogus firm, at the higher rates, in PHED, that too without following tender process and in utter violation to the Financial and Accounts Rules. It was alleged that without obtaining the delivery of goods, the bills were cleared in favour of firms which cause loss of Rs.2,13,795.00 to the State Government and provided extraneous financial benefits to the firms. After thorough investigation, as many as five Government employees of PHED department namely (i) Shivnarayan AEN, (ii) Girraj Prasad AEN, (iii) Harlal AEN, (iv) Satish Divisional Store Keeper, (v) Chandraswaroop Sharma Supervisor were found to be in collusion with (vi) Bhupenra Sharma Proprietor of firm Krishna Electronics, (vii) Abhishesh Sharma Proprietor of firm Popular Engineering, and (viii) Atul Gupta Proprietor of M/s Atul Sales Corporation and it transpired that without following the tender process, their bids were accepted for supply of goods at higher rates and goods allegedly supplied by these firms in PHED were not physically verified, thus, a clear case of criminal conspiracy among all above named persons was found proved by ACB and charge-sheet for offence under Ss. 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC was filed.

(3.) After filing of charge-sheet, vide order dtd. 25/5/2015 charges were framed. In the order dtd. 25/5/2015, against five Government employees of PHED, charges for offence under Ss. 13 (1) (d) & 13 (1) (2) of PC Act were framed and against three persons who were Proprietors of firms, charges for offences under Sec. 12 of PC Act r/w Ss. 109 & 120B IPC were framed. Thereafter, prosecution and defence evidence have been concluded and at the stage of final argument, learned Public Prosecutor moved an application dtd. 14/12/2023 under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C., pointing out that erroneously or inadvertently, charges for offence under Sec. 120B IPC against Government employees of PHED could not be framed and charges for offence under Ss. 13 (1) (d) & 13 (1) (2) of PC Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC could not be framed against other three accused persons and prayer was made to alter charges against accused persons accordingly.