MANISH KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in connection with R.C. 19 (A)/2009 registered under Section 120-B read with Section 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of Sri S.K. Dubey, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. It reveals from the F.I.R. that M/s Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. was allotted a contract with agreement No.IF2 of 2004-05 for strengthening of Parwa-Garhwa Road (30 kilometer) at a contractual value of Rs.3,96,26,072/-. The aforesaid contractor has submitted 37 number of invoices showing procurement of bitumen out of which 25 invoices were purported to be issued by HPCL, Tata Nagar Depot. It was detected that 13 invoices covering 266.483 MT were not actually purchased from HPCL Depot, Tata Nagar and fake bills have been submitted against which payment was made. During investigation it was detected that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer during the period 2006-07 during which measurement against the construction was prepared and bill No.14 bears signature of the petitioner. On the basis of verification made by the petitioner and other accused payment to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- was made to the concerned contractor. The conduct of the petitioner indicates his involvement in the bitumen scam causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1 crore 21 lakhs and odd.

(2.) It is submitted that the verification was to be made by the Junior Engineer. Prosecution has not brought on record that the petitioner has been benefited out of the amount encashed by the concerned contractor. As a matter of fact only repairing of the road was done during the tenure of this petitioner and the payments against purchase of bitumen were already made to the contractor on the basis of verification and measurement done by other accused. Petitioner is in jail custody since 18th March, 2011.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has misused his position in the office and accommodated the said contractor to receive payment against submission of fake invoices. The measurement work was also done by him and the measurement book bears his signature.