R.Inbaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 February, 2018

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Inbaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 February, 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12.02.2018 Reserved on: 06.02.2018 Pronounced on: 12.02.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16274 of 2016 R.Inbaraj : Petitioner Vs. The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Sastry Bhavan, Chennai 6. : Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for records relating to C.C.No.2 of 2016, pending on the file of the Second Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.N.Ashok Kumar Gowtham Special Public Prosecutor :Order The CBI registered a case in RC.MA1-2014-A-0050, on 17.12.2014 and after completing the investigation, have filed a charge sheet in Special C.C.No.2 of 2016 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge For CBI Cases, Madurai, against A.P.Muthuramalingam (A1), S.Srinivasan (A2) and R.Inbaraj (A3/petitioner) for the offences under Section 120-B, r/w 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [for brevity, "the Act"], for quashing which, R.Inbaraj [A3] has filed the present application.

2. Heard Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Ashok Kumar Gowtham, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. When the Criminal Original Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the charges have been framed against the accused and 25 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution before the trial Court. On this short ground alone, this Criminal Original Petition requires to be dismissed.

4. But, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner insisted that he would argue the case on merits.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that absolutely, there is no evidence against the petitioner and that even, according to the CBI, he had acted merely on the instructions of his superior officers namely, A.P.Muthuramalingam (A1) and S.Srinivasan (A2). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that there is a free service way bill, that is issued to the persons to take the materials to the station from the stores and that register has not been seized by the CBI. He also contended that the allegation of the CBI that the furniture were not found in the Railway Station, as per the purchase order will stand negated, if the purchase distribution register is produced.

6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

7. To understand the allegation against the petitioner, it may be necessary to extract the relevant portion in the charge sheet.

"9.That in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, Shri A.P.Muthuramalingam (A-1), being the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager during that time, had instructed _Shri R.Venkataraman, Chief Commercial Inspector (Planning) to assess the requirement of the quantity and description of the furniture items to be provided to the individual stations located between Villupuram and Vellore. Accordingly, Shri R.Venkataraman had assessed the final requirement as follows:-

SI. No Description of the item No. of items to be supplied to the Stations at Villupuram-Vellore Section (excluding Villupuram and ' Vellore No. of items to be supplied to Villupuram alone 1 UTS Table 12 8 2 Table without drawer 13 2 3 Table with drawer 16 6 4 Executive Revolving Chair 20 9 5 Tubular Chair 26 7 6 Steel Cupboard.6' 50 5 7 SS Three Seater Perforated Chair (Waiting Room) 83

---

Luggage Rake (Waiting Room) 17

----

SS Three Seater PerforMed Chair (Waiting Hall) 97

----

Cash Chest

----

10. That quantity of furniture items as assessed by the Chief Commercial Inspector (Planning) was sufficient enough to the stations located between Villupuram Vellore and also Villupuram. As far as the supply of furniture items to Vellore is concerned, the Office of the Gauge Conversion/Tambaram had already provided'-Steel Table, Half Arm Steel Ttibular Chair, Revolving Chair, Almirah etc., to Vellore Station on 26.06.2009.

11.That Shri R.Inbaraj (A-3) was attached to Operating/Traffic Department, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli Division and. was looking after the procurement of non-stock items for both Operating and Commercial Department of the Division. Vide letter No.T/C 14PA/GC/VLR-VM Sec dated 07.03.2011, Shri A.P.Muthuramalingam had instructed Shri R. Inbaraj, the then Head Clerk, Stores, Traffic, Tiruchirapalli, to procure and supply the items as assessed by Shri R. Venkataiaman, the Chief Commercial Inspector (Planning). As advised by Shri A.P.Muthuramalingam (A-1), Shri R.Venkataraman, the Chief Commercial Inspector had given the assessment to Shri R. Inbaraj.

12. That in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, knowing fully aware of the quantity of furniture items assessed by the Chief Commercial Inspector (Planning) for Villupuram-Vellore Section on account of gauge conversion, Shri R.Inbaraj, without initiating the process for procuring the required quantity by consolidating and preparing a single indent for each items, had misused his official position as public servant and to show undue favour to Shri R.Venkatesan of Aadhithyaa Traders and themselves, had prepared 26 indents on various dates splitting the quantities without consolidating each items, as follows:-

Sl.No. Purchase Order Number and date Description of the item Quantity.

and Rs.

Amount 1 No.65030 - 09.04.2010 Half-arm steel Tubular Chair 45 x 1,025 Rs.46,125/-.

No.65033 - 09.04.2010 Steel Almirah 4 1/2 Feet 18 x 4,950 Rs,89,100/-

No.65029 - 09.04.2010 Heavy Duty Steel Table 4'x 2' 17 x 4,800 R5.81,600/-

No.65032 - 09.04.2010 Revolving Chair-Medium back 28 x 2,950 Rs.82,600/-

No.65031 - 09.04.2010 Heavy Wooden Table 4 1/2 x 2 1/2' 13 x 7,500 Rs.97,500/-

No.65034 -09.04.2010 Steel Almirah 6 feet 13 x 6,800 Rs.88,400/-

No.65318 - 08.07.2010 Steel Table with Mica Top 24 x 3,800 Rs.91,200/-

No.65332 - 09.07.2010 Half-arm Steel Tubular Chair 100 x 950, Rs.95,000/-

No.65427 - 12.08.2010 Fake Note Detecting Machine 35 x 2,800 Rs.98,000 10 No.65430 -12 08 2010 Revolving Chair-High Back Executive 23 x 4,200 Rs.96,600/-

No 65509 - 31 08 2010 Parcel Trolley 6 x 16,000 Rs.96,000/-

No 65572 - 17.09.2010 Steel Tubular Chair 85 x 1,100 Rs.93,500/-

No.65573 - 17.09.2010 Executive Revolving Cushioned Chair 25 x 2,950 Rs.73,750/-

No.65574 - 17.09.2010 Wooden Table 4 1/2 x 2 1/2' 12 x 7,500 Rs.90,000/-

No.65575 - 17.09.2010 Steel Table 4'x 2' 15 x 5,100 Rs.76,500/-

No.65576 - 17.09.2010 Steel Almirah 4 1/2 feet 38 x 4,950/ R. 89,100/-

No.65970 - 04.01.2011 Heavy duty Wooden Table 4 x 2 14 x6,800 Rs.95,200/-

No.65966 - 04 01 2011 Half Arm Steel Tubular Chair 50 x 1,500 Rs.75,000/-

No.65965 - 04.01.2011 Wooden Table 6 'x 3 1/2, 5 x 18,400 Rs.92,000/-

No.65971 - 04.01.2011 Steel Almirah 4 1 /2' 12 x 7,500 Rs.90,000/ 21 No.65990 - 10.01.2011 Heavy Duty Wooden Table 4 1/2 X 2 1/2 12 x 8,200 Rs 98,400/ 22 No .65991 - 10.01.2011 Revolving chair cushioned 15 x6,250 Rs 93 750/-

No.65007 - 07.04.2011 Steel Table 4'x 2' 14 x 6,700 Rs 93 800/-

No.65008 - 07.04.2011 Wooden Table 4 1/2 x 2 1/2 10 x 9,800 Rs 98 000/-

No.65009 - 07.04.2011 Half arm Steel Tubular Chair 50 x 1,300 Rs 65,000/-

No.65010 - 07.04.2011 Revolving Chair - Medium Back 20 x 4,800 Rs.96,000/-

13. That the indents should not be split to bring it to the scope of local purchase or to avoid finance concurrence. "All non-stock purchases require consolidation and essentiality certificate as laid down by the extant guidelines as laid down in Board's Letter no.2005/RS(G)/779/7 dated 28.05.2007" - as given in the Delegation of Powers of Southern Railway. However, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched between the accused pi sons, more number of furniture items than the actual requirement were purchased on account of gauge conversion for Villupuram-Vellore Section".

8. Apart from the above allegation, there are other allegations against the petitioner, about which, it may not be necessary to advert to. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his superior officers conspired to give indents to Aadhithyaa Traders for purchase of furniture in excess of the requirement and also by placing individual indents for each type of furniture so that the payment can be made within the financial powers of A-1 to Aadhithyaa Traders.

9. On the request of the CBI, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II has recorded 164 statement of one R.Venkatesan of Aadhithyaa Traders, who has clearly implicated this petitioner in the offence. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that he had merely acted on the instructions given by his superior officers, namely, A.P.Muthuramalingam (A1) and S.Srinivasan (A2), because, no employee is required to carry out illegal orders.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in CBI, Hyderabad Vs. Narayana Rao [2012 (9) SCC 512], in respect of the contention that the petitioner had prepared indents only in accordance with the Rules. Narayana Rao's case [supra] relates to role of an advocate, while giving title opinion to a bank for loan. An advocate is a professional and he gives legal opinion based on the documents submitted by his client. The petitioner herein cannot be treated on par with that of an advocate. Hence, Narayana Rao' case [supra] will be of no help to the petitioner. Since there are overwhelming materials to implicate the petitioner in the offence, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajal Lal & Others [AIR 1992 SC 604].

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that only Section 7 of the Act will be attracted and not Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. This Court is unable to countenance the said submission, because, this is not a trap case for invoking the Section 7 of the Act. This is a case, in which the accused had abused his official position by placing single indents, on account of which Aadhithyaa Traders derived pecuniary advantage. Such an allegation will not fall within the scope of Section 7 of the Act, but, will fall within the ambit of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

12. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the present Criminal Original Petition, the order dated 01.09.2016 made in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.7945 of 2016, dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court, stands vacated and as a sequel, the petitioner/the accused is directed to appear before the Trial Court and cross-examine the witnesses on the date of their examination in chief and there should not be any adjournment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542. If the accused adopts any dilatory tactics, he can be remanded to custody under Section 309 Cr.P.C. in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shambu Nath Singh [2001 (4) SCC 667].

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Sastry Bhavan, Chennai 6.

2.The Second Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court