Arun Kumar Bharti vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 22 August, 2014

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Arun Kumar Bharti vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 22 August, 2014

This revision application is directed against the order dated 3.4.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 2(A) of 2010-R whereby and whereunder, application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

The case of the prosecution is that one M/s Ajay Kumar Bhagat was awarded work for special repair of Dumka-Sahebganj Road at estimated cost of Rs. 54,69,490/-. As per the agreement, M/s Ajay Kumar Bhagat was supposed to procure the bitumen to be utilized in the execution of work from the Government oil company. The contractor in course of construction of road submitted bills along with 18 invoices upon which the petitioner being the Assistant Engineer certified that the quantity of bitumen claimed to have been used has been consumed in the construction of road. However, out of 18 invoices, two invoices were found to be forged and thereby the quantity, which was claimed to have been used, had never been consumed. Still bills were passed on the basis of which the contractor drew the amount fraudulently in connivance with this petitioner and thereby, this petitioner has been alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code and also the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

On such allegation, case was registered as R.C. Case No. 2(A) of 2010-R for the offences under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted after procuring sanction for prosecution, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken. Thereupon, an application for discharge was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected vide its order dated 3.4.2014 which is under challenge.

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the agreement the petitioner was never supposed to make any certification with respect to procurement of the bitumen and thereby any certificate, issued by the petitioner, would have no bearing on the case so far as the petitioner is concerned. Furthermore, the road has been found to be completed and that the sanctioning authority while according sanction for prosecution has not applied his mind and thereby the order granting sanction is bad.

As against this, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, submits that the petitioner had made certification to the effect that the bitumen, claimed to have been used, has been consumed in the work though two bills amongst others, under which bitumen had been claimed to have been procured from Government oil company, have been found to be forged and thereby, connivance of this petitioner appears to be apparent and that so far the submission, relating to order according sanction being bad on account of non-application of mind by the authority, is concerned, plea can be taken at the stage of trial.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality with the order dated 3.4.2014 as the petitioner seems to have certified that the bitumen, claimed to have been used, has been consumed but according to prosecution, such quantity had never been consumed, as certain quantity of bitumen had never been procured and thereby, I do not find any illegality with the order impugned.

The plea with respect to order sanctioning prosecution being bad be taken at the stage of trial, as only on leading evidence it could be known as to whether order has been passed without application of mind and that on account of that, the case of the petitioner has been prejudiced or not.

Accordingly, this revision application stands dismissed.

(R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court