B AKALA BALASWAMY AKALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the sole petitioner under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of case No. RC 13(A)/2000 (R) which was registered under Section 120B read with 420, IPC and Section13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Another petition has also been filed for seeking protection from coercive action of respondent (CBI).

(2.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.The Investigating Officer, Dy S. P. CBI, SPE, Ranchi lodged an FIR stating therein that the accused persons including the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they abused their respective official position and they also helped the private firm, namely, M/s. C.T.C.C. by way of illegally and unauthorisedly transferring differing grade of coal/slurry to the private firm (C.T.C.C.) and also by way of intentionally and dishonestly suppressing relevant facts before the Hon'ble Courts, as a result of which C.C.L. Ranchi was put to a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 90 lakhs. It is further alleged that M/s. C.T.C.C. did not deposit the value of the coal to be lifted as it was not in position to sell such a huge quantity of coal and neither the petitioner, the then Chief of Marketing, C.I.L. nor Shri R. P. Srivastava, the then General Manager (Sales and Marketing) CIL, Ranchi asked M/s. C.T.C.C. to deposit the coal value and to lift the coal. It is further alleged that it was decided/recommended during a meeting held jointly by the Director (Finance) C.C.L. Ranchi C.G.M. Argada Area, CCL, Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL, C.G.M. ( Sales and Marketing Division) CCL,Ranchi etc. to impose a penalty on M/s. C.T.C.C. in case it failed to lift ten thousand M.T. of coal per month as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . When this note duly recommended by the Committee was put up with the accused, the petitioner, the then Director (Technical) an ( Projects and Planning) C.C.L. Ranchi, he observed in favour of the party to the effect that

(3.) The petitioner alleged in the application that the respondent No. 1 has no authority to institute this case as it has got no jurisdiction, when the said Authority, namely, C.B.I. can only operate within the confines of a State, only if the State concerned has given an appropriate consent required to be given u/S. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The State of Jharkhand was born on midnight of 14/15th November, 2000 whereas this FIR was lodged on 15th November, 2000 and as such the respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite consent of State of Jharkhand and as such the institution of the said case was without any authority of law. It is also alleged that this FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as there is no specific or direct allegation against the petitioner to constitute the offence against the petitioner.