PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Instant revision application has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 38 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance (Special) Case No.20 of 2013 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.19 of 2013 by which the prayer for discharge was rejected.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that scheme of Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme (a scheme of Central Government) in which Ranchi, Khunti, Ramgarh and Pakur districts were taken up for construction of electric transmission for upgradation of electric supply in those districts as well as installation of meter etc. As per allegation, the Ranchi district was allotted Rs.18.81 Crores approx in the year 2004 for this programme but the tender was finalized in the year 2008 that prompted revision of cost to Rs.34.25 Crores approx causing loss to the State of 117.65 per cent more. Likewise, allotment of fund was made for it and as per allegation the cost was revised for giving benefit to the tenderers as well as officials of the Board. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that these allegations are not applicable to this petitioner as the delay caused in issuing tender was not because of him. This petitioner cannot be held responsible as he was not posted and entrusted to handle this project before the year 2007 as he had joined in this post in the year 2008. This petitioner has acted as promptly just to avoid surrender of the amount to the Central Government and tried to finalize the tenders so that the amount granted/allotted by the Central Government could be utilized for the interest of the State Government. This petitioner was merely a member of tender committee and he was not responsible for revision of cost. The entire matter relating to tender, revision of cost price were placed before the Board and the Board has taken the decision in this regard. He further submitted that actually the tender was awarded at a lesser price then it was awarded in the State of Bihar. He also submitted that the court below without examining the matter from this angle and by referring the instances, rejected his application for discharge.