NARESH KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dtd. 16/11/2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi whereby and where under, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Ss. 409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so far as it relates to the petitioner only.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the prosecution is that upon a written report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi a preliminary enquiry was made and it was found that without any comparative chart, purchase of medicines and equipment have been made on higher prices leading to revenue loss to the Government. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is confined to serial no.2 of the F.I.R. which relates to Order No.72 dtd. 26/11/2001 given to M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur, which is the Government of India undertaking company and the petitioner is the authorized stockiest of said M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur for medicines and equipment and the petitioner has received Rs.1,19,900.00 for supply of medicines namely Ciprofloxacin which is at a higher price causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.52,750.00. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Pakur has placed the orders for supply of the said medicines with the petitioner and the petitioner has never raised any higher rates nor has caused loss of the revenue to the Government. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in course of enquiry, it has come into light that in the comparative chart of medicines which was prepared in which the price of Ciprofloxacin is Rs.2.16 per tablet quoted by one company but the same was purchased at the rate of Rs.4.27 per tablet from the petitioner but the said allegation are false and no comparative chart was ever prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no privity of contract between ACMO, Pakur and the petitioner rather the petitioner supplied the medicines mentioned in the supply order issued by M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur and as such no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner either for misappropriation or for hatching conspiracy. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the firm M/s. MML have said to have quoted the price of Rs.2.16 per tablet of Ciprofloxacin but no firm in such name exists in India. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Health, Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar has issued a letter contained in Memo No.96 (9)/Swa. dtd. 18/2/1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 of the brief, in which a decision was made by the state government that those medicines which have been manufactured by the government company like M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur will be purchased directly from such company. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notification to that effect was issued by the Health Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand as contained in Memo No.280 (5) Swa. dtd. 31/7/2001 wherein, a decision has been taken to purchase the medicines from the Government of India undertaking, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 of the brief. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar matter in Cr.M.P. No.896 of 2012, a coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No.22 of 2003 including order of taking cognizance and the facts of this case so far as it relates to the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. It is lastly submitted that as no offence has been committed by the petitioner, the order of cognizance dtd. 16/11/2011 so far as it relates to the petitioner be quashed.