MAHENDRA KARDAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application had initially been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Vigilance Case No. 29 of 1994 (Special Case No. 34 of 2003), including the order dated 4.8.2008, under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/109/120B of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner, and also for quashing of the order dated 21.8.2014 by which the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. Subsequently, in course of pendency of the application when charges were framed under order dated 20.11.2014, that was also sought to be quashed. It is the case of the prosecution that a Committee of Legislative Assembly made an enquiry with respect to the illegality in the matter of supply of Aldrin 5% dust and Aldrin 30 EC in 11 Forest Divisions of the State of Bihar and found that one M/s. Allied Agro Chemical Industries, Deoghar, a Benami firm, had shown to have supplied the aforesaid insecticides worth Rs. 26,48,930.14/ - but in fact, all transactions were fake, as it could not be ascertained as to who was the proprietor of the said firm and to whom the said amount was paid. In the light of the said report, the State Government directed that the vigilance case be instituted for every forest division. Accordingly, with respect to Singbhum (Afforestation) Division, Chaibasa, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 1994 was instituted under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/109/120B of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against 16 accused persons, including the petitioner, on the allegation that the then DFO, Singbhum (Afforestation) Division, Chaibasa vide his letter dated 4.9.1982 invited tender for supply of Aldrin 30 EC and Aldrin 5% dust without putting any condition that the tender be submitted by the manufacturer of the insecticide or even condition relating to quality of insecticide like that of certification by I.S.I. was not put in. That apart, tender was never published in any newspaper. Pursuant to the said notices, three firms namely, Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya; Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa and Kashinath Prasad, Jamshedpur submitted their tenders by hand on 22.9.1982 for supply of Aldrin 5% dust. Four firms namely, Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya; Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa; Kashinath Prasad, Jamshedpur and Sitaram Bhut, Chaisbasa submitted their tender on 22.9.1982. On the same day, the Purchase Committee in its meeting accepted the tender with respect to supply of Aldrin 30 EC of Gramin Vikash Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa being the lowest bidder who had deposited the earnest money, whereas the Committee did find that none of the bidders had deposited the earnest money with respect to the tender of supply of Aldrin 5% dust. However, the Purchase Committee allowed the bidders to deposit the earnest money of Rs. 500/ - within 15 days. Subsequently Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya deposited the earnest money of Rs. 500/ - but not within the stipulated period rather after more than two months, still it was accepted by the then DFO, Singbhum (Afforestation) Division, Chaibasa without informing about the said fact to the Purchase Committee. Accordingly, the supply orders were made to them who claimed to have supplied the insecticide but in fact, no insecticide was ever supplied and fake receipt of supply of insecticide was given by one Range Officer and thereby the accused persons in conspiracy with each other committed forgery by making falsification of the documents and embezzled the huge money.

(2.) THE matter was taken up for investigation during which number of documents were collected by the Investigating Officer and he after completion of the investigation submitted charge -sheet against the DFO, Singbhum (Afforestation) Division, Chaibasa and 13 others against whom cognizance of the offences was taken. However, on account of non -appearance of the other accused and also for want of sanction order, the trial court by splitting the case, proceeded against the petitioner and two others namely, Arvind Kumar and Pankaj Srivastava. In that course, an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was filed for discharge of the petitioner from the case taking a plea that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Probationer I.F.S., Kolhan Forest Division who at the instruction of the DFO, Singhbhum (Afforestation) Kolhan Division had participated in the meeting of the Tender Committee in which meeting the firm namely, Krishi Vikash Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya, proprietor of which was Mohan Lal Murarka, was found to be L -1 and thereafter the petitioner did not do anything either in the matter of giving supply order or making payment and thereby in absence of any other act, the petitioner in no case can be said to have conspired with the other accused persons for committing offence as alleged. However, the trial court did not take into account all these aspects of the matter and rejected the prayer for discharge and even framed charges which orders are under challenge.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the Vigilance, submits that it is true that the petitioner did participate in the meeting of the Purchase Committee though he was not the regular member of the Purchase Committee but in that meeting, the tender of a firm, which was found to be a fictitious firm, has been finalized and hence the petitioner can be said to have conspired with the other accused persons for committing the offence as alleged.