HIRAMAN MAHATA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 4.8.2012 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 01(A) of 2010/R whereby and whereunder application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensation of the personal attendance was rejected. The case of the prosecution is that M/s. Kalawati Construction Pvt. Ltd. was awarded with a contract for special repair of Balurnath -Harhargung Road. Under the agreement, contractor was supposed to procure Bitumen from the Government Companies and was supposed to put it to use in construction of the road only after verification of the quality of the Bitumen. The contractor submitted invoices 13 in number showing procurement of Bitumen from the Government Companies. Out of it, 11 invoices were shown to have been procured from H.P.C.L., Ranchi but out of 13, 11 invoices covering 224.2548 M.T. Bitumen had never been issued by the H.P.C.L. Ranchi Depot and thereby certainly that quantity of Bitumen must not have been used but still the petitioner, the then Executive Engineer by passing the bills with respect to those invoices in conspiracy with contractor by abusing his official position facilitated him to draw the amount against the fake invoices.

(2.) THE matter was investigated upon and the charge sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. Thereupon when the summon was issued, the petitioner, as per his case, since was bed ridden on account of being operated upon, filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensation of personal attendance taking a plea of infirmity on account of one of the vertebrae being fractured during road accident, as a result of which the petitioner is unable to do even the routine work without artificial devices and that bowels and bladder have gone beyond his control. That application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected after taking into account the fact that allegation levelled against him is quite serious and that report called for from the Medical Board does not suggest that the petitioner is unable to move on his own.

(3.) AT the same time, the court did take into account the seriousness of the allegation while rejecting the prayer but that cannot be a ground as the provision as contained in Section 205 never does stipulate that the provision of Section 205 cannot be resorted to in a case which is considered to be serious.