MAHESH CHAND BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. the accused-petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.199/2014 registered at Police Station ACB Jaipur for the offence under Sec. 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ) and for offence under Sec. 420 Penal Code read with Sec. 120-B Penal Code to his extent.

(2.) As per factual report dated 30.11.2015 prepared by the investigating agency, the allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is that they entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, co-accused-Shri Rajendra Mohan Sharma without following the procedure of purchase as prescribed under the provisions of GF & AR and without inviting tenders from the open market took steps to purchase drawing copies of 40 pages of 80 gsm size 10 X 7.5 from the petitioner but petitioner supplied copies of 58 gsm instead of 80 gsm.

(3.) Inviting attention of the Court towards material made available on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although initially tenders were invited for the supply of drawing copies of 80 gsm but by mistake petitioner as Proprietor of M/s Ajanta Book Store submitted his tender for the supply of drawing copies of 58 gsm and quoted rate for the copies of 58 gsm and the rate quoted by the petitioner was approved by the tender approval committee for the supply of copies of 58 gsm and not for the supply of copies of 80 gsm. It was further submitted that in various orders which were issued by the co-accused from time to time for the actual supply of the copies also, it was specifically mentioned that drawing copies of 58 gsm are to be supplied at the rate quoted by the petitioner in his tender and, therefore, copies of the same specification were supplied by the petitioner which were accepted by the department concerned without any objection. It was also submitted that in the bills also submitted by the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that drawing copies of 58 gsm have been supplied and the payment at the quoted rate was claimed by the petitioner. It was submitted that at any stage this fact was not concealed by the petitioner that copies of 58 gsm have been supplied and it was never claimed by him that he has supplied copies of 80 gsm. It was also submitted that orders for the supply of copy of 80 gsm were never issued to the petitioner and forged orders have been prepared later on to save the officers of the Department. It was submitted that on the basis of copies of the supply orders, petitioner applied for grant of loan and the bank sanctioned loan in his favour after satisfying itself with the genuineness of the supply orders. It was further submitted that as soon as it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner that copies of 80 gsm were actually to be supplied whereas he has supplied copies of 58 gsm, he by way of letter dated 30.3.2012 agreed to accept payment proportionately with the price of copies of 58 GSM but the prosecution is taking this letter as if petitioner has accepted that in fact order for supply of copies of 80 gsm were issued to him, but he deliberately in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy supplied copies of 58 gsm. It was also submitted that it appears that although the petitioner quoted his rate for the copies of 58 gsm but the tender approval committee took it as if it is for supply of copies of 80 gsm. As in the orders issued to the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that copies of 58 gsm are to be supplied, he was bound to supply copies of the same specification and, therefore, no criminal intent can be attributed on the part of the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner had no role to play for fresh invitation of tenders for supply of various items for which new budget was sanctioned. It was contended that rates quoted by the petitioner and others for the supply of various items in response to the tender notice dated 21.10.2011 were valid upto 31.3.2012. It was also submitted that no iota of evidence has been collected during investigation showing criminal conspiracy on the part of the petitioner or his meeting with co-accused or any other person. It was contended that if the purchase price of the petitioner is taken together with the expenses incurred by him for the procurement and supply of copies at various centers, the price quoted by the petitioner is not at all disproportionate showing undue advantage to him.