RAJESH KUMAR PRATAP KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Order dated 16-10-2001 passed in R.C. Case No. 10(A)/97(D) by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder he rejected the petitioners' application filed under the provisions of S. 203, Cr. P.C.

(2.) The short facts of the prosecution as alleged that by supply order No. 7009 dated 18-11-1993 the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna ordered for supply of 500 metric tonnes of Bitumen to Road Construction Department, Road Vision, Hazaribagh in the year 1993-94, M/s. Bharat Trading Company, Patna was awarded the contract by the Road Construction Department, Road Division, Hazaribagh by letter No. 1421 dated 28-12-1993 for transporting Bitumen from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Haldia, Calcutta to the different godowns located at Hazaribagh Division. It is further alleged that M/s. Bharat Trading Company against the supply order No. 7008 dated 18-11-1993 had lifted a total quantity of 510.35 MTs. of Bitumen, but had supplied only 489.22 MTs of Bitumen to Hazaribagh Division. The balance 21.13 MTs of Bitumen have been misappropriated by the said Transporter. A letter was written to the Transporter for supply of the balance quantity of bitumen. The transporter produced the photocopies of two challans dated 24-6-1996 for 20.61 MTs of Bitumen. However, the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer informed that the balance quantity of Bitumen as regards to the aforesaid two challans could not be received. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has been residing at Mumbai whereas the petitioner No. 2 is posted at Haldia and Court had issued summons against them and they had filed petition for dispensing with them appearance in the Court below u/S. 205, Cr. P.C. as well as it is also submitted that there would be no delay or hindrance in the trial proceeding due to non-appearance of the accused. It is further submitted that the application u/S. 205, Cr. P.C. has should be allowed in this case and on their behalf, counsel would appear during the trial proceeding.