S.N.AKHAURI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Hatia PS Case No. 240 of 2002 corresponding to GR No. 3540 of 2002, registered under Sections 429, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that one Director, Public Relation -cum - Executive Engineer lodged an FIR alleging therein that Jharkhand State Electricity Board has invited a Tender in pursuance to NIT No. 185/J SEB/PR/01 for construction of 52 Power Sub -Station of 33/11 KV in which 14 Companies have submitted their applications. It is further alleged that Ms. MECON, Ranchi being the Technical and Commercial Adviser of the Board has enquired the fact and the Companies have been recommended for opening their price bid. After opening the price bid on 13 -5 -2002 and after scrutinizing the file M/s. MECON has found the rate of M/s. Jyoti Structure Ltd. as lowest, the cost of which was Rs. 131.12 crore. It is further stated that the File No. M (T)/112 was sent before the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase), who on the basis of the rate quoted by M/s. Jyoti structure Limited, Mumbai has sent the same for sanction before the Member (Technical), the petitioner, who has given sanction on 29 -6 -2002 and sent the file before the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase). The said file was sent by the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase) to the Member (Technical) for the purpose of negotiation on price and other issues for which the sanction was granted by him on 5 -7 -2002. It is further alleged that Shri S.N. Akhauri, the petitioner, in his detailed noted dated 26 -8 -2002 has not mentioned anything about the financial matters but after enquiry it was found that the petitioner in his earlier order dated 29 -6 -2002 in page No. 8 on the left side has entered "high cost" and above his signature has written "cost is too high" after 10/11 -9 -2002. It is alleged that the petitioner has done all these works for his benefit resulting into heavy financial loss to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board because of the reason that due to this Act, the entire thing has been given a wrong direction and he has made all efforts to allot the work to L -2. It is then stated that since the Vigilance enquiry is being done by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and the Inquiry Report was sent to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board by the Inspector General (Vigilance), on the basis of which order was passed for lodging the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

(3.) MR . Dilip Jerath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that Inspector General (Vigilace) inquired into the matter and submitted the report indicating as extrapolation and addition of "high cost" and "cost is too high" subsequent to 29 -6 -2002 and even if the extrapolation has been made by the petitioner, that would not amount to commit any offence. It is also submitted that extrapolation meaning as per Blacks Law Dictionary is "The process of estimating an unknown number outside the range of known numbers. Term sometime used in cases when a Court deduces a principle of law from another case".