SHIV MUNI RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31 -1 -2011, as contained in Annexure -4, whereby and whereunder, respondent No. 3 -the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in R.C. Case No. 19(A) of 2009(R). The case of the prosecution is that the Road Construction Department did award work to M/s. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited for strengthening of Parwa -Garhwa Road at estimated cost of Rs. 3,96,26,072/ -. As per the agreement, M/s. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited was supposed to procure the bitumen to be utilized in the execution of work from the Government oil company. The contractor submitted bills along with invoices showing procurement of bitumen from the Government company but certain bills/invoices were forged. Still the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department certified it to be true and on the basis of that money was drawn and thereby it has been alleged that the engineers along with the contractor in connivance with each other committed offences of forgery, cheating and also the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) SO far this petitioner, Junior Engineer, is concerned, though he has not been named in the FIR but during investigation, it was found that the petitioner also dishonestly and fraudulently certified fake invoices showing supply of bitumen without verifying the genuineness of the invoices.

(3.) MR . Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner at relevant point of time was posted as Junior Engineer, whose appointing/controlling authority was the Chief Engineer and thereby in terms of the provision, as contained in Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was the Chief Engineer who could be competent to accord sanction for prosecution, but here in the instant case, sanction for prosecution has been accorded by the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), Government of Jharkhand, by virtue of the note appended to Rule 53(1)(c) of the Rules of the Executive Business but that note had been amended which has not been taken into account and as such, the order sanctioning prosecution is bad.