USHA MARODIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the CBI. Before adverting into the submissions, advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the case of the prosecution.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that a Golbal tender was issued by M/s BSL inviting tenders for supply of 360 numbers of Bearing. Several bidders participated. However, M/s S.G.R. Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, was found to be L­1 and, therefore, supply order was issued to it. Pursuant to that M/s S.G.R. Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, supplied 360 numbers of Bearings, which were utilized by the BSL except 04 numbers of Bearings, which were not found up to mark and on account of that a case was registered against the Company and the officials of the BSL.

(3.) It was submitted by Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that during investigation, the CBI did not find any culpability of this petitioner, who happens to be one of the Directors of M/s S.G.R. Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and, thereby, she was not sent up for trial. In spite of that the trial court without there being any material whatsoever against this petitioner, did take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 25/09/2006. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though there has been no material that the petitioner, a sleeping partner, had had concerned with the day to day affairs of the Company, still the Court took cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, against the petitioner, which is quite bad in view of the decision rendered in a case of "S.K.Alagh­ versus­ State of Utter Pradesh and Others [(2005) 8 SCC 662]".