Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 January, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 CRI. L. J. 2211, 2010 (2) AIR JHAR R 110
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 995 of 2008
Rajesh Kumar Gupta-- -- -- -- -- -- ---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through S.P., S.P.E., C.B.I., Dhanbad.
2. N.M.P. Sinha, Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., Dhanbad -- --Opposite Parties
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Delip Jerath, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Standing Counsel, C.B.I.
-----
Reserved on: 20-11-2009 Pronounced on: 18- 01-2010 D.K. Sinha, J. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision praying for setting
aside the order impugned dated 2.9.2008 passed by Shri V.S. Singh, Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge XIII, Dhanbad in RC- 23(A)/94-D by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge was rejected for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Prosecution story in short was that Rajesh Kumar Gupta (petitioner herein), Additional General Manager, Kusunda Area, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad , B.N. Sinha, Area Purchase Officer, Kusunda Area, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad and K.P. Pal, Executive Engineer of the said colliery while were posted in their respective capacities during the year 1992-93 entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves and also with M/s. R.K. Steel Industries, M/s. Maa Kalyaneshwari Steel Udyog Ltd. and one M/s. Deo Dhari Pandey and floated tender for supply of steel doors, which were approved by the accused persons including the petitioner and when supply of sub- standard materials were detected the same were returned but later on accepted however it was alleged that such acceptance of sub-standard articles by the accused including the petitioner was managed through M/s. Deo Dhari Pandey, thereby putting pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.2,56,147/- to the B.C.C.L. and wrongful gains to the accused persons including the petitioner.
3. Petitioner had moved earlier before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1532 of 2003 for quashment of the cognizance order which was not allowed however, disposed of by the order dated 4.3.2004 with certain observation.
24. Learned counsel Mr. Jerath submitted that only suspicion was raised against the petitioner and at no point of time the petitioner was found involved in the process of inviting tender as he was not posted at Kusunda Area of the B.C.C.L at the relevant time when tender was floated because he was transferred much back on 6.11.1992 itself.
5. Mr. Jerath further submitted that M/s. Maa Kalyaneshwari Steel Udyog Ltd. had supplied 501 steel doors, which were not accepted as were found sub-standard by the committee in which petitioner was one of the members. Petitioner had not at any point of time approved calling for limited tender so as to oblige any particular person for his personal gains or the gains of the members of the committee.
6. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Kumar appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons during the relevant period at Kusunda Area of B.C.C.L., Dhanbad in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with M/s. Deo Dhari Pandey cheated the B.C.C.L. and its authorities and in pursuance thereof, facilitated payment to the tune of Rs.2,56,147/- to M/s. Deo Dhari Pandey on behalf of the M/s. R.K. Steel Industries, as such wrongful loss was caused to the B.C.C.L. There was sufficient materials on the record to frame charge against the petitioner and others for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Finally, the learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I. submitted that prayer for discharge of similarly situated co-accused Kali Pada Pal was rejected by this Court in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2009 on 16.7.2009.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge XIII, Dhanbad has meticulously dealt with prima facie materials available against the petitioner so as to call for the petitioner to stand charge under the relevant sections referred to hereinbefore and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to show any cogent ground so as to call for interference in the impugned order by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
9. There being no merit, this petition is also dismissed.
(D.K. Sinha, J.) S.B.