A.K.AMBASTHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. Entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 2 of 1998 (Vigilance Case No. 3 of 1998) including the order dated 8.12.2011 under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner has been challenged on the ground that sufficient evidences are not there to put the petitioner on trial and that there has been denial of right to speedy justice, as the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1981-82, whereas the first information report had been lodged in the year 1998 and the charge-sheet was submitted only in December, 2011.

(2.) Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though number of allegations are there in the first information report but all those allegations are not concerned with the petitioner. So far petitioner is concerned, one of the allegations are there that the petitioner being the member of the Purchase Committee and also other members of the Purchase Committee, did award a contract, for supply of plaster of paris, to a person, who had submitted its tender papers after the last date fixed in the notice and that when plaster of paris was supplied its strength was not found to be the same, as it was specified in NIT (Notice Inviting Tender), rather it was of inferior quality and for that the petitioner cannot be held responsible, as the role of the petitioner was only to select a person for awarding contract Thus, what has come against the petitioner is that the petitioner and others, being members of the Purchase Committee, awarded contract to a person, who was not entitled to get it. Except that, nothing more has come against the petitioner so as to put the petitioner on trial and that there has been denial of right to speedy justice and, therefore, the order taking cognizance is itself fit to be quashed, in view of a decision rendered in a case of Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2009 3 SCC 355.

(3.) As against this Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the vigilance submits that the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Civil Engineer, High Tension Insulator Factory, Namkom, Ranchi, at the relevant point of time, and others, being the members of the Purchase Committee, adopted corrupt practices in awarding contract for supply of the materials whereby, heavy loss was caused to the Government exchequer.