PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Vigilance (Special) Case No. 20 of 2013 (corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19 of 2013) registered under Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Ss. 13(1) (c) (d) and under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also to quash the order dtd. 6/8/2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1171 of 2019 and to quash/set aside, with all consequences, the order framing charge dtd. 18/11/2021 as well as the charges framed on 18/11/2021.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that The First Information Report in this case was registered with the allegation that under APDRP scheme related to the towns of Ranchi, Khunti, Ramgarh, Jamtara and Pakur, it was detected that illegal allotment of tender was given to the contractor under criminal conspiracy by the petitioner along with the co-accused persons by misusing their power and post as Public Servants. It is further alleged that the members of the Tender Evaluation Committee were changed many times to finalize the tender and the approval of the competent authority in submitting the revised price was not found in the file. It is also alleged that the cost of that was not approved by the Board and that under criminal conspiracy of the petitioner along with the co-accused persons, the approval of the tender was made ignoring the advice of accounts department to the contrary. It is also alleged that projects of Ranchi town as well as the other towns of the year 2004 was decided in the year 2008 and the work order was placed by escalating the estimate. It is further alleged that the complicity of the petitioner is evident from the fact that on account of intentional delay in allotment of the work, the amount had to be raised substantially and the petitioner is responsible for huge amount of wrongful loss caused to the Board. The further specific allegation against the petitioner is that although the Accounts Sec. of Jharkhand State Electricity Board made an objection regarding the procedure of tender but the petitioner overruled the objection and made favourable noting in favour of the contractor which was approved by the Chairman and in the process the evaluation report submitted by MECON was totally ignored in order to provide benefit to the party concerned. It is also alleged that Ranchi district was allotted ₹ 18.81 crore approximately in the year 2004 for this program but tender was finalized in the year 2008 at a cost of ₹ 34.25 crores approximately causing huge wrongful loss to the state.