Jharkhand High Court
Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty vs State Of Jharkhand Thr C.B.I on 1 April, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.706 of 2008
Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty. ... ... ... ...Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ... ...Opp. Party
------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.P.Deo, Advocate(s).
Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate.
For the C.B.I.: Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate.
-------------
C.A.V. on 23.02.2011 : Pronounced on 1st.04.2011
-------------
D.K.Sinha,J. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order
dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional
Sessions Judge, VIIIth, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.11(A)/2004(D) by which
cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner under Sections
120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant reliably learnt
to the effect that Shri S.K. Chauliya, Scientist-C of Central Mining Research
Institute (C.M.R.I.), Dhanbad, D.C. Goswami, Store and Purchase Officer
(C.M.R.I.), Dhanbad entered into conspiracy with M/s Allied Technology, 5/15,
WEA, Karolbag, New Delhi and others unknown and in pursuance of the said
criminal conspiracy and by using their official position, purchased soil and
irrigation kit at exhorbitant price causing wrongful loss to C.M.R.I., Dhanbad and
wrongful gain to themselves. It was further alleged in the First Information
Report that M/s Allied Technology, New Delhi in connivance with the above
officers of C.M.R.I. and other unknown, supplied the said Soil Irrigation Kit
Model DREL/2010 manufactured by M/s HACH Company, Loveland, Colorado,
USA at an exhorbitant cost of Rs.13,78,000/- against the actual cost of
Rs.359316/-. It was further alleged that on 16.05.2000 the accused
S.K.Chauliya inspected and certified the said item received by D.C.Goswami
causing wrongful loss to C.M.R.I. by their act. The C.M.R.I., Dhanbad in that
manner was put to wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 10,18,684.00/- and thereby
gains to the accused which constituted offence under Sections 120B/420 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
by Shri S.K. Chauliya, D.C.Goswami, M/s Allied Technology and other
unknown, for that the instant case was registered giving rise to R.C. 11(A)/2004
(D) for the investigation under the orders of S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad. After
investigation, the C.B.I. submitted charge-sheet against Shri Swadesh Kumar
Chauliya @ S.K.Chauliya, Shri Dulal Chandra Goswami @ D.C.Goswami, M/s
Allied Technology, New Delhi through its Chief Executive Officer and
Proprietor Shri Gurdev Singh @ G.S. Dang, the petitioner Shri Mrinal Kanti
2
Chakraborty @ M.K. Chakraborty, Shri Jyotish Chandra Saha, Shri Gurdev
Singh @ G.S.Dang and Shri Ajay Kumar Singh @ A.K.Singh.
3. The final report submitted by the C.B.I. under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure indicated that Shri S.K.Chauliya the then Scientist 'B',
Environmental Impact Assessment & Environmental Management Plan
(EIA/EMP) and the petitioner Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty the then Scientist 'E-
I'/HOD, Environmental Impact Assessment & Environmental Management Plan
while posted and functioning at Central Mining Research Institute (CMRI),
Dhanbad, a contituent lab of CSIR, New Delhi, raised indent No.1 dt. 5.4.99 for
Soil & Irrigation Kit of certain specification. The investigation of the case
established that the aforesaid Scientist in pursuance of criminal conspiracy
suggested the names and addresses of eight supplier firms but none of the said
firms used to manufacture or deal in the Soil and Irrigation Kit of the required
specification. It was stated that M/s HACH Company, U.S.A. was the only
distributor in India under the name and style M/s Orbit Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad but the name of M/s Orbit Technologies was deliberately not given.
Besides, sets of charges and allegation made in the final report, it was
transpired during investigation that M/s Allied Technology, New Delhi did not
supply materials till May, 2000 thereafter M/s Allied Technology procured Soil
and Irrigation Kit from M/s Orbit Technology Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vide invoice
No.42 dated 15.05.2000 at a cost of Rs.
3,65,930/- and supplied the same to C.M.R.I. Dhanbad on 16.05.2000 at the
higher price. Shri S.K.Chauliya and Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty i.e the
petitioner herein issued inspection certificate on the basis of which payment
was released to M/s Allied Technology vide cheque amounting to Rs.
13,78,000/- and thereby caused wrongful loss to the C.M.R.I. and
corresponding gains to themselves. The I.O. commented that alleged facts
constituted offence against the accused persons including the petitioner Shri
Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty under Section 120B I.P.C. r/w Sections 420/467/468 &
471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of
the P.C. Act, 1988. On the basis of the police report submitted by the C.B.I.,
cognizance of the offence was taken on 19.12.2006 by the Special Judge,
C.B.I.-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Dhanbad in R.C. 11(A)/2004 (D)
under alleged Sections of the charge-sheet as sanctions were obtained for the
prosecution of the public servant S.K.Chauliya and the petitioner Mrinal Kanti
Chakraborty, by the Director General, CSIR, New Delhi, a competent authority
to grant sanction for prosecution in this regard.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. K.P.Deo appearing for the petitioner assailed
the impguned cognizance order dated 19.12.2006 on the sole ground that it was
barred under Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Advancing his argument Mr. Deo submitted that ealier a case R.C.
3
1(A)/2003 (D) was registered which was related to indent No.1 dated 5.4.1999
as against procurement of Soil and Irrigation Kit to the lab of CMRI whereas the
instant case was also for the same period, which was registered on 5.8.2004
when the ealier case was under investigation and that the source of the
information of the instant case vide R.C. Case No.11(A)/2004(D) were only the
statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal
Procedure and for that two sets of FIR cannot be held maintainable.
6. Mr. Deo further submitted that when cognizable offence is
reported, giving rise to institution of an F.I.R., the Investigating Officer not only
investigate about a particular offence but also investigates the offshoot of the
alleged offence committed in course of same transaction and was permitted to
file supplementary charge-sheet/ police report under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure. Similarly, the allegations as levelled against the accused
persons including the petitioner in R.C. Case No. 1(A)/2003(D) that in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy they bye-passed the set norms of purchase
procedure and favoured the supplier by placing order for purchase in order to
put C.M.R.I. to wrongful loss and thereby wrongful gains to themselves which
was common in both the cases. The instant case vide R.C. Case No.
11(A)/2004 (D) was filed intentionally and maliciously only in order to harass the
accused persons, who were arrayed as accused in earlier case and the source
of information of the subsequent case was the statement of the witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereby, the Investigating Officer of the
earlier case was not precluded to investigate any irregularities or illegality
committed in relation to purchase order No. CMRI/PER/F21(2) 1999/190/1030
dated 15.10.1999 for the supply of Soil Irrigation Kit to the lab of C.M.R.I.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India In T.T. Antony V. State of
Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 S.C.C181 held,
"An information given under sub-section(1) of Section
154 Cr.P.C. is commonly known as first information report
(FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very
important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the
earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence
recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the
criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the
investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion
under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C. as the case may be and
forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is
quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more
informations than one are given to a police officer in charge
of a police station in respect of the same incident involving
one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he
need not enter every one of them in the station house diary
and this is implied in Section 154 Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague
information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the
information first entered in the station house diary, kept for
this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station
is the first information report- FIR postulated by Section 154
Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after
4
the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable
offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first
information report and entered in the station house diary by
the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may
come to his notice during the investigation, will be
statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. No such
information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and
entered in the station diary again, as it would in effect be a
second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the
scheme of Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions
cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the
investigating agency learns during the investigation or
receives fresh inforamtion that the victim died, no fresh FIR
under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be
irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in
the first FIR is the proper course to adopt."
8. The Opposite Party-State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. entered
appearance in this Misc. Petition and filed counter-affiavit stating therein that
the present case was registered on 5.8.2004 on the basis of source information
as against S.K.Chauliya, D.C.Goswami and M/s Allied Technology and other
unknown persons for putting wrongful loss to C.M.R.I. to the tune of Rs.
1018684/- and thereby wrongful gains to themselves. Whereas R.C. 1(A)/2003
(D) was registered on 28.01.2003 on the complaint made by CVO, CSIR, New
Delhi against several accused persons named including the petitioner Mrinal
Kanti Chakraborty wherein it was alleged that from April, 1999 to June, 1999
the accused officials of C.M.R.I. in connivance with some general order supplier
firms caused purcahse of various scientific equipments at highly inflated rates
on the limited tender basis either by splitting the requirement or by keeping the
estimated cost low to the extent of Rs. 2 lakh and thereby caused wrongful loss
to the extent of Rs. 50 lakh to the CMRI. A suppementary counter-affidavit was
filed on behalf of the Opposite Party State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.
mentioning that during course of investigation of R.C. 1(A)/2003(D) registered
on 28.01.2003 when it could be gathered that distinct offence was committed in
different transaction, another case RC11(A)2004-D was registered on
5.08.2004on the basis of source information against S.K.Chauliya, D.C. Goswami and M/s Allied Technology under Section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The nature of offence of both the cases were quite different, though some of the accused were common. The period of offence in R.C.1A/2003(D)/ in which Charge-sheet was submitted earlier was from April, 1999 to June, 1999 whereas the FIR of RC 11(A)/2004 (D) was for the offence between the period from April, 1999 to 2000 and hence a separate FIR for different offence and these facts were orally subsntantiated by Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, the Counsel for the C.B.I.-O.P.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, though I find that the occurrence 5 alleged against the accused persons including the petitioner was for the overlaping period beginning from April, 1999 to 2000 but I find that the nature of the allegations were different. The C.B.I. concentrated its investigation on the issue involved in RC 1(A)/2003(D) wherein purchase of equipments, filter paper, digital burettes and other chemicals were involved by ignoring the set norms of purchase and without observing a competitive bid it was alleged that the purchase of the above items were made at highly inflated price and that handful of firms were picked up by the indenters whereas the subsequent FIR viz. RC 11(A)/2004 (D) registerd on the 'sources information' in relation to purchase of Soil Irrigation Kit from a favoured supplier who acted as middleman at inflated rate causing wrongul loss to CMRI which could be assessed during trial. To my view issues involved in the different sets of FIR are quite distinct for different period, not connected to each other and the charge-sheet submitted in the RC 1(A)/2003 (D) did neither speak about the commission of the subsequent offence against the petitioner and other accused by which the C.M.R.I. was put to heavy wrongful loss and thereby wrongful gains to them. There appears prima facie case, for lodging of 2nd F.I.R. under given facts and circumstances of the case. The illustration given in the T.T.Antony's case (supra) referred to hereinbefore did not bar the subseqent FIR for the different offence unconnected with the earlier offence (FIR) and therefore, to my view the decision of the Apex Court is of no help to the petitioner. I do not find merit in this petition and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to convince the Court so as to call for interference in the cognizance order dated 19.12.2006 in R.C. Case No. 11A/2004(D) pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad
10. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed.
[D.K.Sinha,J.] P.K.S./N.A.F.R.