VIRENDRA PRATAP DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 of 2011 (Special Case No.2 of 2011) registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/477A/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as order dated 07.02.2013 whereby and whereunder warrant of arrested has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in a Vigilance Case No. 2/2011, which has been lodged on the allegation that the accused persons including this petitioner in connivance with each other, put Jharkhand State Electricity Board to heavy loss by making payment of the huge amount to the Contractor M/s Ramjee Power Construction Limited. The Vigilance, having registered the case, took the matter for investigation and has been doing investigation right from the year 2011. During which period, the petitioner, being Director Finance, JSEB was discharging his duties. Suddenly, a requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer on 07.02.2013 before the court concerned, wherein it has been stated that an FIR has been lodged against the accused persons including this petitioner wherein allegation has been made that the accused persons in connivance with each other, put Jharkhand State Electricity Board to a heavy loss, by making payment to the Contractor M/s Ramjee Power Construction Limited, when award was given in his favour by the Arbitrator, who should not have been appointed and even the contractor should not have been paid by the petitioner under improper order of the Financial Controller. On such accusation, prayer was made to issue warrant of arrest against the accused persons. On such requisition, an order was passed on 07/02/2013, whereby warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against the petitioners. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order under which warrant of arrest has been issued by the court below never seems to be inconsonance with the provision under Section 73 Cr.P.C.. In similar situation, warrant of arrest as well as process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. had been issued against Niranjan Roy who had challenged the said order before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.523 of 2013, this Court having found the order issuing warrant of arrest and also the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. not in accordance with law, quashed the order under which warrant of arrest and process has been issued. Similar is the case with this petitioner, whereby, the order under which warrant of arrest and also the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued are never in accordance with law.