LAWS(JHAR)-2009-9-3

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On September 05, 2009
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) entered into an agree- j ment with M/s. Railway India Technical Ser- j vices Limited (M/s. RITES), a Central Government Undertaking for laying electrification in rural areas consisting of 4923 villages for a sum of Rs. 300 crore. Pursuant to that, different work orders were issued in the year 2003 to M/s. RITES. As per the terms of the agreement, 10% of the project cost equivalent to Rs. 29.19 crores was to be released to M/s. RITES as mobilization advance against the Bank guarantee of equivalent amount. However, M/s. RITES assigned the job for execution of the same to M/s. Ramjee Power Construction Limited (M/s. RPCL) for Rs. 277.5 crore and as per their agreement, M/s. RPCL was required to deposit 5% of the contractual amount, i.e. Rs. 13.875 crores towards security by way of Bank guarantee and further a sum of Rs. 13.875 crores on account of mobilization advance also by way of Bank guarantee. On entering such agreement, M/s. RITES made request to the Board to allow M/s. RPCL to submit Bank guarantee through it (M/s. RITES) for the amount equal to 92.5% of mobilization advance and further allow it (M/s.RITES) directly to furnish Bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of 7.5% of the mobilization advance which request was acceded to by the Board. THEreafter mobilization advance to the tune of Rs.29.19 crores were released to M/s. RITES through cheque of Rs. 10,97,15,020/- in the name of M/s. RPCL and Rs. 18,10,24,076/- in the name of M/s. RITES. However, before that M/s. RITES after obtaining 18 Bank guarantees from M/s. RPCL worth Rs. 25,43,79,465/-deposited it with JSEB. However, on 27-7-2005 Additional General Manager of M/s. RITES informed to the Board that Bank guarantee, received from M/s. RPCL which were deposited with the Board, are forged. When enquiry was made by the Board from the Bank of India, Club side Branch, Main Road, Ranchi, the Chief Manager of the Bank informed that out of 18 Bank guarantees, 14 Bank guarantees worth Rs.19,64,85,959/- had been cancelled on the basis of letter issued by M/s. RITES and also by J.S.E.B and on production of original Bank guarantee by M/s. RPCL, though J.S.E.B had never written either to M/s. RITES or the Bank Manager for discharge of the Bank guarantee and moreover, Bank guarantees as per the clause stipulated therein were never supposed to be cancelled without the consent of J.S.E.B. Under this situation, first information report was lodged on 11-8-2005 against the petitioner, Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. RPCL as well as Chief Manager, Bank of India, Ranchi alleging therein that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other got the amount of mobilization advance released on the basis of forged Bank guarantees which were cancelled by M/s. RPCL in connivance with Bank officials. Upon it, a case was registered as Dhurwa P. S. case No. 153 of 2005 under Sections 467, 471, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after one and half month, the Joint General Manager Vigilance of M/s. RITES lodged a case with the CBI putting allegation that pursuant to an agreement arrived at in between M/s. RPCL and M/s. RITES, 15 Bank guarantees worth Rs. 15,91,02,019/- towards security deposit and 12 Bank guarantees worth Rs. 16,80,48,772/- towards mobilization advance were submitted by A. K. Singh, Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. RPCL. Upon confirmation of the issuance of the Bank Guarantees by the Bank, a sum of Rs.16.8 crore was paid to M/s. RPCL but when some suspicion arose, enquiries were made with respect to genuineity of 27 Bank guarantees, 22 Bank guarantees are forged and not only that even those Bank guarantees have been cancelled by M/s. RPCL without seeking advice from M/s. RITES and thus, Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. RITES and other employees in connivance with officials of the Bank of India, Ranchi caused loss to M/s. RITES to the tune of Rs.32.7 crores. On the basis of a written complaint, CBI registered a case against the accused persons under Section 120(B) read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) UPON registration of the second FIR, this writ application was filed for quashing the second first information report on the ground that on the same set of allegation, 1st first information report had been lodged as Dhurwa P. C. case No. 153 of 2005 and as such any statement/allegation subsequently made should have been treated statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, registration of second first information report by the CBI is wholly unwarranted and is fit to be set aside.

(3.) IN support of his submission learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance rendered in a case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1850) and in the case of Manipur Administration, Manipur v. Thokchom Bira Singh (AIR 1965 SC 87).