RAJBALI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide order dated 05.04.2016 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-A.J.C. XVII, Ranchi in R.C. Case No.16(A)/2009-R the application for discharge was rejected. It is further submitted that at the relevant time this petitioner was working as Junior Engineer and was not concerned with the criminal conspiracy hatched by other accused persons. It is also submitted that co-accused Satyadeo Prasad Jaiswal was to supply bitumen to the Department and it was the duty of the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer to supervise the supply of bitumen as per the agreement entered into between the parties. The bitumen supplied by the company was fully utilized for construction of the road and this petitioner had little role to play with that.

(3.) Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. submitted that this petitioner had certified the fake bitumen's invoices bearing the same assignment number, although no bitumen against these fake invoices were ever supplied by the company to the contractor. The payment was made on the basis of fake bills and after utilization of the bitumen, the bitumen drums were not returned and thus this petitioner in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused misused his official position and allowed the use of forged document as genuine and had caused loss to the department. He further submitted that now after framing of the charge the case is nearly at the conclusion stage.