ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 19.03.2016 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner -XVII -cum - Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in RC 20(A)/2009 -R, whereby and where under the application field by the petitioner on different dates with prayer to direct the C.B.I to supply all the deficit documents ie. D -2 to D -17 and the statements of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 12, which are not readable, has been rejected.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant fact which is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, in short, is that at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation ( in short "C.B.I."), an F.I.R. was lodged under sections 120B,420,467,468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 13(2) read with 13(1))D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with allegation that one Basudeo Tiwary and three Executive Engineers, Road Construction Department, Chaibasa during the period 2006 -07 entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur and unknown persons and pursuance thereof, the said firm submitted false/bogus invoices showing procurement of Bitumen for execution of the contractual work awarded in its favour, which caused wrongful gain to the contractor and wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand to the tune of Rs.89,68,966/ -.

(3.) After investigation, the C.B.I submitted the charge -sheet under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act only and other sections in which F.I.R was lodged were dropped. In the charge -sheet this petitioner, who was Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Division, Seraikela, Kharawan was also shown as an accused. With the charge -sheet, a list of witnesses and a long list of documents were enclosed as memo of evidence, which were collected and forwarded to the Special Judge within the meaning of Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short "the Code") without there being any exception as contemplated under section 173(6) for which no application was filed by the Investigation Officer before the Court.