Jharkhand High Court
Moushumi Thakurta Nag @ Moushami ... vs Union Of India Through C.B.I. ...... ... on 8 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 925 of 2023
1. Moushumi Thakurta Nag @ Moushami Thakurta Nag
2. Subrata Kumar Nag @ Subrato Kumar Nag
...... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. ...... Opp. Party
........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarthak Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Mrs. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I. Mr.Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ..............
04/Dated: 08/12/2023 Heard Mr. Sarthak Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I appearing for the C.B.I.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the chargesheet and cognizance order dated 28.01.2021 passed in connection with RC Case No. 3(A)/2018-D and entire criminal proceeding, pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI cum SDJM, Dhanbad.
3. RC Case No. 3(A)/2018-D has been instituted alleging therein that a reliable source information has been received by this Branch to the effect that during the period 2012-17, Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh, the then Chief Scientist, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad (since retired); Dr. Amlendu Sinha, then Director, CSIR CIMFR, Dhanbad (since retired) entered into a criminal conspiracy with Smt. Maushumi Thakurta Nag @ Maushumi Nag, W/o Subrata Kumar Nag, Proprietor of M/s Aryan IT Solution (M/s AITS), Ajanta Para, Near Hotel Naresh, Dhanbad; Shri Subrata Kumar Nag @ S. Kumar, Project Site Manager, M/s Aryan IT Solution, Ajanta Para, Near Hotel Naresh, Dhanbad and unknown officials of CMPDI, Ranchi, CCL, Ranchi & CIL, Kolkata and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy made excess unauthorised payment in the form of TA/DA. Salary, Office rent, etc. to M/s Aryan IT Solution (AITS) 2 thereby causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs.30,20,520/- to CIMFR and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
It is alleged that an Agreement between CIMFR and M/s AITS was made on 27.08.2012 for the project entitled "Design & Development of an Integrated System for Monitoring & Control of Movement of Man & Machine, to enhance Safety & Security in Mines" (Product/ System) worth Rs.4.37 Crores and the site for this project was Piparwar Mines of CCL. It is further alleged that for getting awarded the above said project, Smt. Maushumi Thakurta Nag of M/s AITS had submitted fake and forged experience certificates. The above company M/S AITS was allowed by CIMFR to start the work on 06.07.2012, where as the agreement for said project was executed on 27.08.2012.
It is further alleged that the project was aimed to be completed within 18 months from the date of commencement of project le. 06.07.2012, but the said project was not completed in spite of three extensions given to M/s AITS from time to time; 1 extension was given for 10 months upto October, 2014, 2nd extension was given for 05 months upto March, 2015 and 3 extension was given for 26 months upto May, 2017. It is also alleged that accused Dr. V.K. Singh, in the capacity of Project Leader and Project Coordinator of the said Project did not submit the required periodical Progress Reports to CMPDIL for the period October, 2013 to December, 2014. It is further alleged that only 06 towers were erected/installed at the Piparwar Area of CCL by M/s AITS out of the whole R&D Project and some equipments have been purchased which are lying unutilized being non-functional for all practical purpose. No purpose of R&D Project has been achieved and no benefit has been derived to CCL/ CIL/ CIMFR thereby causing wrongful loss to the government exchequer.
It is alleged that for the project ie. "Design & Development of an Integrated System for Monitoring & Control of Movement of Man & Machine, to 3 enhance Safety & Security in Mines", CIMFR was supposed to prepare a Project proposal in the prescribed proforma as per Guidelines for implementing Coal Research Projects duly supported by a detailed Project Report incorporating the past experience of Implementing Agency in the execution of the project vis-à- vis time schedule and submit the same to CMPDI for scrutiny. After first level scrutiny, CMPDI was to submit the proposal of CIMFR to the said Apex Committee of CIL with their recommendation and the Apex Committee was required to further evaluate the proposal and thereafter sanction the Individual R&D Project. As per Delegation of Powers of Apex Committee vide Circular No.CIL/CP/DOP/R&D Board/83-94 dtd. 17.04.2008 of CIL, Apex Committee is authorized to sanction individual R&D Project upto Rs.5 crores with a limit of Rs.25 crores per annum considering all the projects together. It is alleged that the said procedure was not adopted in the above case of GAP Project (Grant in Aid Project). It is also alleged that no such proposal was initiated by CIMFR or CMPDI by publishing Expression of Interest for the said GAP in the newspapers and official websites.
It is alleged that the Apex Committee for R&D Board of CIL had approved the project in principal subject to some conditions as mentioned in the minutes of meeting dated 12.05.2012 and had also changed the title of the project proposal. To obtain credentials of M/s AITS alongwith CVs of the Personnel involved in this Project was an important precondition for giving approval by the Apex Committee, But this was not properly verified by the accused officers of CIMFR. It is alleged that AITS had submitted forged bogus credentials about its work experience with previous companies for obtaining the project in its favour.
It is alleged that Dr. Amlendu Sinha had dishonestly selected M/s AITS for the said project even without prior approval of the Management Council of CIMFR. As per the "Guidelines for technology transfer and utilisation 4 of knowledge base issued by CSIR, New Delhi, Dr. Amlendu Sinha, Director of CIMFR was empowered to accord financial approval in case of Grant in Aid Projects upto Rs.50 lakhs. Since, the total cost of the said project was Rs 4.37 crores, Dr. Amlendu Sinha was not the competent authority to give approval for the above mentioned project. In this case, Management Council of CIMFR was the competent authority to give approval beyond Rs.50 lakhs. It is also alleged that Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh and Dr. Amlendu Sinha did not place the said project proposal for approval sanction before the Management Council of CIMFR in order to extend undue favour to Smt. Maushumi Thakurta Nag of M/s AITS. The said firm could not complete the work by the stipulated time of February, 2014 and undue favour was given to the said firm by giving extensions thrice:- 1 for 10 months upto October, 2014, 2 for 05 months upto March, 2015 and 3 for 26 months at a stretch upto May, 2017. But the said firm could not complete the work even during the extended time period of 41 months. Thereafter, the incomplete project was abandoned as only 06 towers at Piparwar Area of CCL were erected but the same was of no use for CCL and the whole purpose of said R&D Project was defeated. But by this time, 72 % of contract amount amounting to Rs.3,13,88,700.00 was released to M/S AITS.
It is further alleged that fraudulent payments towards salary and TA/DA to the personnel of M/s AITS as well as expenditure on office rent was made to M/s AITS. Besides, it is also alleged that the accused firm M/S AITS illegally made 04 FDRS out of the Project Amount meant for the said project only, and subsequently, misappropriated the interest accrued/earned from those 04 FDRS. In this way, a wrongful loss of Rs.30,20,520/- was caused to CIMFR and corresponding wrongful gain was caused to the private accused persons. As per para 20 of "Guidelines for implementing coal research projects", it was the responsibility of implementing agency (CIMFP) to get the accounts pertaining to the Grant audited and to furnish a copy of audited 5 statement to CMPDIL but Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh & others officials of CSIR- CIMER, Dhanbad pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, did not get the accounts audited.
The above mentioned facts, prima facie, reveal commission of cognizable offences U/s 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 on the part of above mentioned accused persons and hence, a Regular Case is registered against Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh, then Chief Scientist, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad (Since retired), Dr. Amlendu Sinha, then Director, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad (Since retired), Smt. Maushumi Thakurta Nag @ Maushumi Nag, W/o Subrata Kumar Nag, Proprietor of M/s Aryan IT Solution, Ajanta Para, Near Hotel Naresh, Dhanbad, Shri Subrata Kumar Nag @ S. Kumar, Project Site Manager, M/s Aryan IT Solution, Ajanta Para, Near Hotel Naresh, Dhanbad & unknown officials of CMPDI, Ranchi, Central Coal Fields Limited, Ranchi & Coal India Limited, Kolkata and others under the aforesaid sections of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case on the concocted story. He submits that an agreement was entered into on 27.08.2012 between the petitioners and Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) and in view of that no criminality is made out. He submits that the entire chargesheet is bad in law and chargesheet may be quashed. He further submits that cognizance order is also not in accordance with law and order taking cognizance is required to be interfere with by this Court. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding, order taking cognizance and chargesheet may be quashed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. submits that the Apex Committee for R&D Board of CIL had approved the project in principal subject to some conditions as mentioned in the minutes of meeting dated 12.05.2012 and had also changed the title of 6 the project proposal. He submits that to obtain credentials of M/s AITS alongwith CVS of the Personnel involved in this Project, was an important precondition for giving approval by the Apex Committee. He further submits that M/s AITS had submitted forged/bogus credentials about its work experience with previous companies for obtaining the project in its favour. He submits that there are materials against the petitioners and due to misappropriation wrongful loss has caused to the CIMFR to the tune of Rs. 30,20,520/-. He submits that learned court looking into all these aspects has taken cognizance.
6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in the chargesheet it has been revealed that CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad entered into an agreement on 27.08.2012 with the petitioner Smt. Maushumi T. Nag of M/s Aryan IT Solution, Dhanbad for collaborative Coal India Limited (CIL), R &D, Research, entitled Design and Development of an integrated system for Monitoring and Control of Movement of Man and machine to enhance safety and security in Mines. In the chargesheet it has been revealed that fraudulent payments towards salary and TA/DA to the personnel of M/s AITS as well as expenditure on office rent was made to M/s AITS. It also revealed that the accused firm M/s AITS illegally made 04 FDRs out of the Project Amount meant for the said project only and subsequently misappropriated the interest accrued/earned from those 04 FDRS and caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 30,20,520/- to CIMFR. The chargesheet further revealed that Smt. Maushumi Thakurta Nag of M/s AITS had submitted fake and forged experience certificate.
7. The chargesheet is on record. The learned court after looking into chargesheet and considering the materials on record has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 28.01.2021.
7
8. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under section 204 of Cr.P.C., a detailed enquiry regarding merits and demerits of the case is not required in cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused and such an order is based upon subject to satisfaction of the learned Magistrate considering police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. However, in the case in hand, the Court finds that learned court has recorded reasons of taking cognizance and found a prima facie materials against the petitioners.
9. In view of above the Court finds that order taking cognizance is not bad in law. The judicial mind has been applied thereafter cognizance has been taken. In the chargesheet which is on record as discussed hereinabove those materials are there in the chargesheet There are parameters of exercising power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and none of the ground is there as held by the he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and guidelines by the State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others" 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 .
10. In view of above no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/