AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. However, after the investigation, the C.B.I. submitted the chargesheet in which the petitioner was also made an accused. It has been alleged against the petitioner that he being the Senior Manager, Raw Material, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro was aware of the results conducted by R & C Laboratory which had clearly shown that silica content was far away from specification as per the purchase order. The petitioner wrote letter nos. RND/1334 dated 03.07.2008 and RND/1361 dated 04.07.2008 to M/s Dolomite Mining Corporation by mentioning silica content as 3.80% as per the sample test at the plant and directed for improvement in the material. It is further alleged that the petitioner had issued Goods Receipt Note (GRN) and advise note for making payment to the Finance Department of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro without imposing any penalty as per penalty clause of terms and conditions of the purchase order.