Jharkhand High Court
B.R.Prasad ? Bangalore Ram Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 11 April, 2014
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
Criminal Revision No.37 of 2011
Against the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the
Additional District & Sessions Judge-1, Dhanbad in R.C.
No.20(A) of 1995(D)
-----
B.R.Prasad @ Bangalore Ram Prasad...........Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand through C.B.I..............Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : M/s.Jitendra Singh,Sr. Advocate
Arvind Kumar and C.Mukherjee, Advocate
For the C.B.I : Mr.M.Khan, Advocate
P R E S E N T
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
R.R.Pd.,J. This application is directed against the order dated 27.9.2010 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Dhanbad in R.C. No.20(A) of 1995(D)
whereby and whereunder prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for his
discharge from the case was rejected.
Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties,
case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.
In the month of May,1996, Coal India Limited (in short 'CIL') invited
tenders for the work of screening, loading and transportation of coal from
various collieries of BCCL to Alakdiha Coal Dump. Pursuant to that, three
parties including M/s. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation
(M/s.CTCC) submitted their tender papers. The tenders were processed by
a committee consisting of four persons, all officials of M/s. BCCL (accused
nos.2 to 5). During that course, they intentionally and fraudulently proposed
to extend the scope of work by including additional items, such as (i)
provision for transit loss (ii) stacking of grade wise coal (iii) provision for
ground shortage (iv) proper supervision of stock and arrangement to
maintain grade wise dispatches and (v) loading of customer's truck as and
when required to show favour to the said M/s. CTCC (accused no.6) to which
Ramesh Gandhi (accused no.7) and Rajesh Gandhi (accused no.8) were the
partners. These additional items were approved by this petitioner (accused
no.1), who at the relevant point of time was posted as Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of M/s. BCCL in conspiracy with other accused persons,
though inclusion of additional items had never been approved by the
Chairman of CIL. This had been done with a mala fide intention to favour
accused no. 6 to 8 as operation of Alakdiha Coal Dump including supervision
of loading of customer's truck at Alakdiha Coal Dump was the responsibility
of M/s. BCCL officials. The work pertaining to loading of coal was awarded
to M/s. CTCC by the accused person @ Rs.5.25 per M.T in the year 1987
whereas in the year 1992, for the same job, the work had been awarded at
a lower rate of Rs.4.08 per M.T.
Further it has been alleged that in the year 1992, M/s. BCCL had
invited fresh tenders for transportation of coal to Alakdiha Coal Dump. That
was challenged by one Ramesh Gandhi before the Kolkata High Court. The
accused no.7 and 8 fraudulently and dishonestly represented before the
Management of M/s. BCCL, that the Kolkata High Court has restrained M/s.
BCCL from interfering with the contract work awarded to M/s. CTCC, as a
result of which, M/s. BCCL decided to drop the transportation work for
Alakdiha Coal from NIT and thereby M/s. CTCC was allowed to continue with
the work and thereby the accused persons (6, 7 and 8) were benefited.
Further it has been alleged that M/s. BCCL sustained huge wrongful
loss on account of payment being made to M/s.CTCC towards transit loss,
supervision of loading of customer's truck and maintaining grade wise
stock and loading of coal to the tune of Rs.1,32,51,305.33. Thus, it has been
alleged that accused persons committed offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and
also under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and correspondingly Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On such allegation, FIR was registered as R.C. No. 20(A) of 1995(D).
The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, it was
found that M/s.CIL, Kolkata had issued NIT for transportation of coal/coke
from colliery to the stockyard and for unloading, screening, stacking size-
wise and grade-wise at stockyard. The last date of submission of the tender
was 1.7.1986 and the technical bid was to be opened on 1.7.1986 at 3 P.M.
On 1.7.1986, a telephonic message was received by the Dy. C.M.E (Sales) of
BCCL, Dhanbad (accused no.3) to the effect that date of sale of tender
paper has been extended upto 18.7.1986 and last date of submission of
tender has been extended upto 22.7.1986. Despite the extension of date,
tenders as per the order of the petitioner were opened in uttered disregard
to the instruction issued by M/s. CIL, Kolkata by the tender committee on
1.7.1986. As per the instruction issued by M/s. CIL, tender documents received by C.I.L and other subsidiaries all over India, pursuant to NIT issued by M/s.CIL were to be sent to M/s. CIL, Kolkata for further processing and scrutiny and thereby it was instructed by CIL to the officials of M/s. BCCL, vide its letter dated 28.6.1986 to bring the tender papers with him so that necessary processing and scrutiny be done before the next meeting of the tender committee. Instead of acting in accordance with the instruction, the then Dy.C.M.E (Sales), M/s.BCCL, Dhanbad (accused no.3) sent a telex message on 1.7.1986 itself requesting Dy.G.M (SY & T) and Chief of Marketing, M/s. CIL, Kolkata to give post facto approval to the opening of tender on 1.7.1986 by M/s. BCCL. This request was rejected by CIL, Kolkata, vide its letter dated 21.7.1986 and directed this petitioner, CMD, BCCL for cancelling the aforesaid tender and to re-tender the same. On receiving the said letter, the petitioner vide its letter dated 21.7.1986 wrote to the Chairman, M/s. CIL, Kolkata to allow him to proceed with tender and to award work by October, 1986.
Further it was found that the then Chief of Marketing, CIL, Kolkata vide its letter dated 12.9.1986 did inform to this petitioner, CMD, M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad that the tender paper of Alakdiha have not been considered for evaluation by the Tender Committee and the same were returned to M/s.BCCL for appropriate action by G.M (Sales), BCCL for disposal of tender papers and refund of earnest money to the parties. In spite of that, Tender Committee consisting of accused no.2 to 5 held its meeting on 31.10.1986, in which representatives of all the three concerns who had submitted tender papers including representative of M/s. CTCC attended. Thereupon Tender Committee made recommendation for inclusion of following additional items, though it were never part of the NIT.
Item no.1(ii)- Provision of transit loss not applicable for this work Item no.2 - Not applicable for this work Item no.3(b)II-Staking of grade-wise coal properly in a position to keep ready for loading by pay loaders.
Item no.3(b)III- Proper supervision of stocks and arrangements to maintain grade-wise dispatches.
Item no.3(b)VI - Provision for ground shortage Item no.3(b)IV - Loading of customer's truck as and when required in the event of failure of mechanical aids of BCCL.
Rather as per the tender document, loading of coal was the responsibility of BCCL. In spite of that, tender committee made recommendation illegally and unauthorizedly to include the aforesaid additional items. On receiving recommendation, this petitioner directed the tender committee to combine item no.1(ii) and item no.3(b)VI for obtaining a package offer covering all the items referred above from all the tenderers and to consider once again before one is awarded contract. Thereupon, tender committee dishonestly and fraudulently recommended for award of work to L-1 tenderer, M/s. CTCC, though the rate quoted by M/s. CTCC and M/s. Patliputra Transporters and Contractors were the same as Rs.5.25 paise per M.T. The tender committee further recommended for release of mobilization advance to the extent of 10% of the estimated value of work. This rate accepted by the tender committee was in excess as later on similar kind of work contract had been awarded @ Rs.4.05 paise. In spite of that, this petitioner approved recommendation made by the tender committee whereby award was given at the package rate of Rs.9.90 paise per M.T. inclusive of all the additional items. Upon work being executed, a sum of Rs.1,02,39,799.66 (Rs.1.02 crores approximately) was paid for loading of the coal at colliery @ Rs.5.25 paise per M.T and further amount of Rs.91,54,973.52 was paid to M/s.CTCC, Dhanbad for loading of coal in consumer's truck @ Rs.5.25 paise per M.T. during the relevant period, i.e. 1987-93, though loading of coal was the responsibility of M/s. BCCL as per provision of NIT and thereby recommendation and its approval by the petitioner of awarding additional work was dishonestly done to favour M/s. CTCC and on account of that, wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1.93 crores approx. was caused on account of awarding work as additional items and further wrongful loss of Rs.0.44 crores (approx) was caused on account of making excess payment towards loading of coal. Thus, M/s. BCCL suffered wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.2.37 crores.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 25.1.2001, upon which the court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, corresponding to Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Upon submission of the charge sheet, when it was found by the petitioner, as the case has been made out, that the Investigating Officer during investigation did not take into account several records deliberately rather suppressed it and had that been taken into account, result of the investigation would have been otherwise, the petitioner did file representations before the authorities of the Central Government including to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India making prayer to direct the concerned authority of the C.B.I to take into account all the relevant facts and documents which had been suppressed by the Investigating Officer.
Representation filed by the petitioner was considered by the authorities and in response thereto, a communication was received by the petitioner from the then Director, C.B.I informing therein that his representation is being attended to by him. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to present his representation before the Joint Director, East CBI, Kolkata. Accordingly, he made representation and also he had had meeting with the Joint Director, East CBI, Kolkata to whom it was stated that had the Investigating Officer been taken all the relevant records into account, he would not have found any culpability on the part of the petitioner. It was explained to him through his representation and also orally that Chief of the Marketing of M/s.CIL, vide its letter dated 18.9.1986 addressed to the petitioner had authorized M/s. BCCL for processing the tender and to award contract relating to operation of Alakdiha Stockyard. Documents were also there to show that approval of the award of the contract had been accorded by the Board of M/s. BCCL.
Thereupon the C.B.I made a prayer before the concerned court for allowing him to go for further investigation. The prayer was allowed. During investigation, the Investigating Officer after taking statements of Director of M/s. BCCL and also the Company Secretary of M/s. BCCL did find that the then Chief of Marketing of CIL had written a letter dated 18.9.1986 to the petitioner, CMD, BCCL authorizing BCCL to deal with the matter related to the contract for operation of Alakdiha Stockyard of M/s.BCCL in the manner it may be deemed, fit and proper. Further it was found that final approval of the award contract was accorded by the Board of M/s. BCCL in its 102 nd meeting held on 8.4.1987.
Having found the aforesaid facts, the Investigating Officer submitted supplementary report before the court below on 29.5.2003. Much thereafter an application was filed before this Court, vide Cr.M.P.No.264 of 2007 whereby entire criminal proceeding of R.C.No.20(A) of 1995(D) including the order taking cognizance dated 25.1.2001 was challenged wherein it had been argued that the Investigating Officer while submitting charge sheet had misrepresented the fact distorting the same to cause prejudice to the petitioner and thereby it had mislead the court to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner which would be evident from the supplementary report submitted which apparently indicates that only when M/s. BCCL was authorized to process the tender and to award contract, the Board undertook the process of the tender and made recommendation for awarding contract to M/s. CTCC which was approved by the Board of M/s. BCCL. However, the court did hold that defect or illegality in investigation however serious had no direct bearing of cognizance unless illegality in investigation brings about a miscarriage of justice and thereby the court did not find it proper to interfere with the order taking cognizance. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to agitate the ground on the basis of materials available on the record at the stage of commencement of the trial against him.
Thereupon, according to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner in the light of the observation made by the High Court filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to discharge him from the case. That application was disposed of on 27.9.2010 holding therein that sufficient materials are there against the petitioner for framing of charge.
Being aggrieved with that, this revision application has been filed. Mr.Jitendra Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court committed grave illegality in rejecting the prayer made for discharge as he did pass order without considering the entire materials relating to the case particularly supplementary report which was part of the police report which demolishes the entire accusation made by the C.B.I against the petitioner.
In this regard it was further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that after NIT was invited by M/s. CIL for transportation of coal/coke from the collieries to the stockyards, unloading, screening and stacking size wise and grade wise at the stock yards. Tender papers were submitted which were processed by the tender committee, though the authority of M/s. CIL had asked the authority of M/s. BCCL to cancel the tender and to return the earnest money. But during further investigation, it was found that M/s. CIL after holding meeting on 18.9.1986 allowed BCCL to take decision in relation to contract to be awarded for stockyard operation of the Alakdiha Stockyard and thereby Chief of the Marketing, CIL vide its letter dated 18.9.1986 had given green signal to the authority of M/s. BCCL to take decision in relation to the contract to be awarded for stockyard operation.
Under this situation, tender committee took up the matter relating to work to be awarded to the tenderers, who had submitted their tenders.
In this regard, it was pointed out that tender committee in its meeting held on 31.10.1986 decided that all the additional items which had been excluded/deleted from the scope of contract though initially conceptualized and conceived by CIL were essentially required to be executed for smooth operation of Alakdiha stockyard made recommendation for its inclusion with all justification. The tender committee in its meeting felt that if different agencies were engaged for execution of various works, it may eventually lead to controversies/disputes between M/s. BCCL and the agencies or among the agencies inter-se which may create problem for the management of M/s. BCCL to fix up specific responsibilities and pin-point to short comings of any particular agency.
It was also felt that inclusion of all additional items of job which was originally conceptualized by CIL but later on it were excluded happen to be utmost necessary for proper maintenance of the stock of coal and /or its storage, sales, dispatch from the stockyard, grade-wise smoothly without any discrepancy or slippage. While taking such decision, it was also taken into account that by involving different contractual agencies BCCL may run the risk of incurring a huge revenue loss on account of stock shortage and/or grade slippages for which it would be more prudent for the management which could only be avoided by entrusting the entire responsibility to one contractual agency for carrying out all the operation so that in the event of any lapses or any financial loss caused to M/s. BCCL the agency could be penalized.
The said recommendation was made by the tender committee for obtaining approval for inclusion of additional items much earlier of opening of the financial bid and thereby it was not known to anyone as to who among the three tenderers would be emerging out successful.
When the recommendation was placed before the petitioner, he agreed with the proposal given for inclusion of the additional items. However, it was suggested that instead of having different rates from the tenderers for different items, a package rate for execution of all the additional items be obtained. At the same time, the petitioner while appreciating the recommendation put emphasis that responsibility of any shortage occurring in the stocks of coal at stockyard should be fastened upon the contractor. It was also stipulated that the matter shall be considered by the Board of the Company before the contract is awarded to any of them. Thereupon the committee in terms of the stipulation made by the petitioner asked the tenderers to submit their bids which were submitted by them which were opened in presence of their representative. It was found that the rate quoted by M/s. CTCC, Dhanbad was the lowest. However, it was felt that there is still scope for further reduction of the rate quoted by the tenderers. In that event, all the tenderers were asked to submit their revised quotation for additional items. On submission of the revised rates, M/s. CTCC, Dhanbad was found to be L-1. In that event, any allegation against the petitioner of conspiracy with each other to put L-1 to advantageous position is without any basis.
Accordingly, the tender committee submitted its recommendation before this petitioner which was unanimous and even the Finance Members of the tender committee, namely, K.C.Pratihar, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Dy. Finance Manager of Bastacolla area of M/s.BCCL and had played vital role in the process of the tender had agreed to the proposal and as such, he was equally responsible for making recommendation but it is strange to note that he has not been charge sheeted.
It was further pointed out that when the recommendation was submitted before this petitioner, the petitioner did think it proper to get it vetted by the Director (Finance) of M/s.BCCL, who happens to be the member of the Board of M/s. BCCL and hence, the file was endorsed to him. Upon receiving the file, Director (Finance) sought for certain clarifications which were submitted. After scrutiny. Director (Finance), BCCL approved the recommendation made by the tender committee with a note that provision made for mobilization advance to be paid to the contractor be done away with. When the matter came before the petitioner, he promptly accepted it and directed the tender committee to persuade successful tenderers to withdraw the proposal related to mobilization advance. The tender committee called the representative of M/s. CTCC and asked him to withdraw the condition in relation to mobilization advance who agreed to leave claim on it. Thereafter concerned file when was received by the petitioner, he passed an order for placing the proposal before the Board of BCCL for consideration and approval. The matter was placed before the Board of Directors in its 102nd meeting held at Patna on 8.4.1987. The concerned agenda was discussed by the Board of Directors of M/s. BCCL and thereupon it approved the proposal relating to rate, terms and conditions recommended by the tender committee. This fact had earlier been suppressed by the Investigating Officer while submitting charge sheet but when the matter was taken up for further investigation, it got surfaced and thereby it cannot be said that the petitioner in its individual capacity had taken decision for approving the recommendation made by the tender committee for awarding work to M/s. CTCC.
While pointing out the aforesaid fact, learned counsel also submitted that neither the Director (Finance), M/s. BCCL nor members of the Board have been made accused and if nothing wrong was found on the part of the aforesaid persons, how the petitioner can be said to have conspired with other accused to award work to M/s. CTCC.
It was further submitted that the C.B.I while submitting charge sheeting has also calculated the loss on the basis of difference of the rates, upon which work was awarded to M/s. CTCC and the rate on which the work was awarded to another party but it failed to appreciate that in the matter related to award of contract involving several items of work, the rate of particular work can vary depending on the period the circumstances, other legal factors particularly position of demand and supply which are taken into account for calculation of the cost and pricing strategy of each tenderers.
Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the question of hatching conspiracy by the petitioner with other accused persons including contractor does not arise but the trial court while rejecting the prayer for discharge did not take into account all these facts much less the facts collected during further investigation showing innocence of the petitioner and thereby the impugned order is fit to be set aside.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that admittedly in the NIT floated by M/s.CIL the items which were included by the tender committee were never the subject matter of the contract. The tender committee got it included which was approved by the petitioner and on account of that M/s.BCCL suffered huge loss and it was also found that during investigation, M/s. CTCC has been awarded contract at an exorbitant rate which also caused loss to BCCL and in this manner total loss caused to the BCCL was to the tune of Rs.2.37 crores and in this event, the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for discharge.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the petitioner and other accused persons are being prosecuted on two fold accusations which are being given hereunder:
1.In spite of intimation being given by the authority of M/s.CIL not to process the tender received from the tenderers, pursuant to NIT issued by M/s. CIL, officials of M/s.BCCL by ignoring it proceed with the process of the tender.
2.In the NIT issued by M/s. CIL, parties were asked to put forth their offer for transportation of coal/coke from the collieries to the stockyard and unloading, screening and stacking size wise and grade wise at the stock yards only whereas the tender committee while processing the matter relating to render included five items which have been stated above and asked the tenderers to submit their bids. On submission of the price bid over the additional items when M/s. CTCC was found to be L-1 recommendation was made to award contract to him which the petitioner approved it.
So far the first accusation is concerned, the Investigating Officer, who had submitted charge sheet seems to have failed to take into account or did not take into account the relevant records containing order under which the authority of BCCL had been asked to go ahead with the process of the tender submitted by the tenderers, pursuant to NIT issued by CIL. However, when the matter was taken for further investigation, it got transpired that the then Chief of Marketing of CIL, Kolkata, Mr.Krishnamurty with the approval of the then Chairman, CIL, Kolkata had sent a letter dated 18.9.1986 to the petitioner to go ahead with the process of tender. This fact subsequently found to be correct by the CBI during further investigation did demolish the entire accusation of the CBI that the authority of BCCL had proceed with the process of tender, in spite of intimation being given by the official of CIL of canceling the tender. The Investigating Officer during further investigation seems to have recorded the statement of Mr.Krishnamurty, who has accepted the fact that he had sent the said letter dated 18.9.1986.
Coming to other accusation, it be stated that in the NIT, additional items of which contract was awarded to M/s. CTCC had never been included in the NIT. However, when the tender committee after receiving tender papers held meeting, it felt inclusion of all the items would be necessary for proper maintenance of the stock of coal and/or its storage, sales, dispatch from the stockyard, grade-wise smoothly without any discrepancy or slippage. The decision of inclusion of those items for which the tenderers had been asked to submit their price bid had been forwarded to this petitioner, who before approving it, endorsed the matter to the Director (Finance), CIL, who having been satisfied with the clarification submitted by the tender committee for inclusion of the additional items accorded its concurrence to the proposal with a suggestion that mobilization advance be done away. As per his suggestion, mobilization advance which was earlier proposed to be given to the contractor was done away with. Thereupon recommendation made by the tender committee was sent for its approval before the Board of Directors, who in its meeting held on 8.4.1987 approved the proposal, only thereafter the contract was awarded to M/s. CTCC. Earlier this fact of approval of the recommendation by the Board of Directors had never been brought on the record by the Investigating Officer while submitting charge sheet but during re-investigation, this fact was found to be correct which is evident from the supplementary report submitted by the Investigating Officer wherein it has been stated as follows:
" During investigation all the seven Board Members were examined. All of them have confirmed having attended the said Board Meeting and that the proposal in question was placed before them in the said Board Meeting dated 8.4.1987 while agenda item no.102.9(i) and this proposal relating to award of contract to M/s. CTCC was approved by the Board. "
They have also accepted that the approval of its finality was unanimous as there is no note of disscent in the meeting of the said Board Meeting and thereby accusation made by the CBI that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other had included the additional items to put M/s. CTCC in advantageous position falls flat.
Now, the question does arise as to whether the aforesaid materials were sufficient to discharge the petitioner from the case.
In this respect I may refer to the provision as contained in Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:
239. When accused shall be discharged- If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
From its perusal it does appear that whenever it would appear to the court from the materials placed before it by the prosecution that the charges against the accused is groundless, the accused is entitled to be discharged.
In this regard it be further stated that it has been well established that if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence, the evidence, if any, can not show that the accused committed offence then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
In this respect, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10 SCC 394] which is in the context of the provision under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but there does not appear to be much difference as in Section 227 the word has been used 'not sufficient ground' for proceeding whereas in Section 239, the word has been used as 'groundless', Their Lordships in that case held as under:
" It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in Section 227 Cr.P.C postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible.
Under the circumstances stated above, it can be said that accusation upon which the petitioner is being sought to be tried can easily be said to be groundless which may not lead to the petitioner to conviction as the decision seems to have been taken collectively by various authorities which were within their competence to take such decision. While taking such decision, there may be an error of judgment but that never lead to conclusion, in absence of any material that the authorities abused their position or took decision to cause any wrongful gain to themselves or to a third party or for causing wrongful loss to the State, that the accused in conspiracy of each other committed offence as alleged.
But here in the instant case, as I have stated above that when the decision had been taken by number of authorities before the contract was awarded by the petitioner, the prosecution cannot be said to have made out a case of criminal conspiracy.
The trial court did not consider all these aspects of the matter it its right perspective while rejecting the prayer for discharge and hence, that order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the case.
(R.R.Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 11th April, 2014, NAFR/N.Dev