Jharkhand High Court
Mathura Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 6 July, 2011
Author: Jaya Roy
Bench: Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 455 of 2011
Mathura Prasad ... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Opposite Party.
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Petitioner: M/s. P.P.N.Roy, Sr, Advocate & Mr. Ajit
Kumar, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate.
-----
04/06.07.2011Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the the order dated 10.01.2011 passed in R.C.Case No.23A of 2009-R by the Special Judge, CBI- cum-additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 201, 420, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
3. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed a Cr.M.P. No. 1511 of 2009 for quashing the F.I.R. but during the pendency of the said application, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner vide order dated 10..1.2001, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the aforesaid application. The said prayer was allowed and aforesaid Cr.M.P. Application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.02.2001 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1511 of 2009. It is further submitted that while hearing a Public Interest Litigation i.e W.P.(PIL) No. 803 of 2009, the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 30.06.2009 was pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate and enquire the allegations of large scale irregularities, bungling,embezzlement in the matter of procurement of bitumen used in construction/repair of roads. On receipt of such directions, a Preliminary Enquiry vide No.PE 03(A)/2009 was registered at Central Bureau of Investigation, anti corruption Branch, Ranchi and during the course of enquiry it was found that fake/forged bitumen invoices were submitted by the contractor M/s Ishwar Construction, Chutia, Ranchi in execution of contractual works under rural work Deptt. (RWD), Giridih and accordingly the C.B.I. has registered a case vide RC-23(A)/09-R dated 22.10.2009 under Sections 120-B,read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was made party as respondent in the aforesaid P.I.L case but no notice was issued to him. Therefore, he preferred a S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the aforesaid order i.e. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15991 of 2009. After hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Apex Court by the order dated 30.10.2009 disposed the aforesaid Special leave petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the registration of the case against him in accordance with law under the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Mr. Roy has contended that the allegation made in the contents of the F.I.R. shows that invoices submitted by the contractor for procurement of bitumen were fake and the engineers including the petitioner who is an executive engineer certified and allowed for payment. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the procurement of the bitumen by virtue of government order, he has to only ensure that the quality of bitumen and other materials was up to the mark and further the finished work has been executed as per the specification.
5. Mr. Roy, has further submitted that the First information report does not show that there was any shortcoming in the construction of the road or the road constructed by the contractor was not up to the mark.
6. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, appearing for the C.B.I., has submitted that the present petitioner namely Mathura Prasad was executive engineer at the relevant period, entered into a Criminal conspiracy with Ishwar Construction, Chutia, Ranchi and unknown others and thereafter abusing his official position certified and allowed the bills of the aforesaid contractor firm for payment and the said bills included the payment of bituminous works and also cost of the bitumen. On investigation it has come that the Contractor M/s Ishwar Construction was paid Rs.1,77,89,150/- through Twelve on Account Bills for the execution of the above mentioned road work. The payments of the bills were received by the contractor which included the bituminous works and also cost of bitumen. On investigation it has further come that M/s Ishwar Construction, Contractor dishonestly and fraudulently submitted seven bitumen invoices showing purported procurement of 114.35 MT bitumen purportedly issued from M/s IOCL Depot, Namkom for preparation and payment of On Account Bills, which were fake. No officer/staff of the IOCL signed on those fake bitumen invoices and therefore, no bitumen was sold to Manoj Kumar Ishwar against those invoices. Manoj Kumar Ishwar also did not deposit any demand draft for procurement of bitumen as shown on those fake invoices. The registration numbers of the lorries shown in the aforesaid seven invoices are the registration numbers of two wheelers. Thus all these circumstances clearly prove that those invoices submitted by the contractor were fake.
7. Mr. Khan has further submitted that during the investigation it has come that the present petitioner Mathura Prasad was aware of the fact of the submission of fake invoices by Manoj Kumar Ishwar (Contractor), even then he has passed the bills submitted by the said contractor. Furthermore, on a consequent audit objection on submission of fake invoices, he allowed submission of another Six fresh invoices by the contractor after returning the previous five fake invoices and thus, he has abetted the destruction of the evidence by allowing to return the fake invoices to the contractor.
8. Considering the submissions made by the parties and considering the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I and also the materials on the records, I find prima-facie case is made out for proceeding further in this matter against the petitioner. Furthermore, sufficient materials have come in the investigation which show the involvement of the petitioner in this case as stated above. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Jaya Roy, J) SI/