BHANU PRATAP SHAHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

(2.) PETITIONER has been made accused for the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (I) (c ) and 13 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with R.C. Case No. 11 (A) of 2009 A.H.D (R). The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Minister of Health, in the State of Jharkhand and his tenure as such was from 08.02.2007 to 23.08.2008 and again from 27.08.08 to 12.01.09. This case relates to the Medicine Scam in the state of Jharkhand in which there is allegation against the high officials of the Department of Health that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and by abusing the respective official positions as Public Servants, they fraudulently and dishonestly purchased medicines, medical equipment / appliances, sundry items etc., used in hospitals from nineteen suppliers worth Rs. 1,30,50,79,951.74 out of the fund allotted for National Rural Health Mission (herein after referred to as 'NRHM'), sponsored and financed by the Government of India. The purchases were made at highly inflated rates and there is allegation against Public Servants of accepting illegal gratifications from the suppliers, to the tune of crores of rupees for placing orders for supply at the highly inflated rates. It may be stated that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is no allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the NRHM is a sponsored programme of the Central Government and the Health Minister of the State Government had no financial power in the said Project. It is submitted that the entire decision in the NRHM Scheme is to be taken by the Executive Committee which is chaired by the Health Secretary and the President of the Governing Body, who is the Chief Secretary of the State and precisely, this is the reason as to why the petitioner was not named in the FIR initially. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made accused in this case only on the basis of the statement of the said Rajesh Kumar Fogla, whose statement was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., twice. His statement was recorded initially on 05.10.2009, wherein, he had not taken the name of the petitioner at all, rather he had stated that whatever money was given by him as commission, it was given to one Shyamal Chakravarty, who was the agent of the then Secretary of the Department of Health, Dr. Pradeep Kumar, who is also an accused in this case. Subsequently, the statement of Rajesh Kumar Fogla was again recorded after the lapse of about ten months, i.e., on 17.06.10 wherein this co -accused has stated that during the year 2008 -2009, his firm had paid the commission to the tune of Rs. 8,39,00,000/ - against the purchase orders worth Rs. 42,11,20,214/ - wherein the share of the petitioner Bhanu Pratap Shahi was 4% and 7% and an amount of Rs. 2,16,00,000/ - was given to him through Vijay Shankar Singh and Shyamal Chakraverty. In this statement the said co -accused had given the details of the payments made to the other co -accused persons also. Rajesh Kumar Fogla has also given the details of the payments of the commission, wherein he has stated that in the first week of October 2008, Rs. 1,40,00,000/ - was paid to Shyamal Chakraverty, again in the month of November, 2008, Rs. 50,00,000/ - was given to one Pappu and in the month of January 2009, Rs. 1,40,00,000/ - was given to Shyamal Chakarverty. Thereafter, in the month of March 2009, Rs. 2,50,00,000/ - was given to Shyamal Chakarverty and in the month of April 2009, Rs. 2,25,00,000/ - was again given to Shyamal Chakarverty and Pappu.