Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
1. Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.950 of 2019 in R.C. 20(A)/2009-R whereby and whereunder the petition filed for discharge under Section 227 read with Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected.
2. Earlier the petitioner had moved in Cr.M.P. No.562 of 2011 for quashing of the cognizance was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2012 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. As per the charge sheet, this petitioner was working in the capacity of Junior Engineer and looking after the work of “Special Repair work in Km 61, 62, 63 & 64 of Seraikella-Chaibasa Road in Km 1, 2, 4 & 5 of Chaibasa-Bypass Road for the year 2006-07”, being executed by M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur. It is alleged that he conspired with Dharamvir Bhadoria and committed criminal misconduct by preparing the measurement book and bills which were not supported by invoices pertaining to the procurement of bitumen from the Government Oil Companies. The petitioner abusing his official position facilitated the accused firm in passing of the bills without any bitumen invoice. Further, he did not conduct physical verification of bitumen drums at the work-site.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the materials do not disclose the commission of cognizable offence punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C. read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no whisper in the police paper that there was substandard construction of road and the case has been lodged after three years of construction. It is submitted that there was no deficiency of quality of work in the said construction of road. The entire bitumen was purchased from IOCL and HPCL. With regard to it, reliance has been on Annexure 10 series which is letter issued by Sr. Manager, (Consumer Sales), IOCL to the CBI dated 24.06.2010. HPCL had issued letter dated 03.06.2010.
5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned senior Special P.P. appearing on behalf of C.B.I. opposed the quashing petition. It is submitted that there are telling details which has come during investigation that this petitioner along with other accused persons, did not ensure the submission of bitumen invoice as per the terms in the work order. Under the work order bitumen was to be purchased only from oil companies. It was also not ensured the return of a single empty drum out of 1014 of bitumen drums shown to have been used by the accused firm after use of bitumen in them. It showed that the quantity of bitumen as claimed in the measurement book was not utilized. Further, there was no corresponding documents showing the physical verification of these bitumen drums by this petitioner and other accused persons. This petitioner had prepared the first On Account Bill on 15.03.2007, second On Account Bill on 29.06.2007. All these bills were cleared without ensuring compliance with the terms of work order. Later on, bitumen invoice were submitted in the office by the contractor showing purchase of 217.863 MT of packed bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gamharia, Jamshedpur in order to cover up this criminal misconduct. Investigation revealed that this invoice of packed bitumen was procured not for the road work of subject case, but for the road work of National Highway Division, Jamshedpur.
6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned. The main allegation against this petitioner is that while serving as Junior Engineer, the bill of payment of bitumen of the contractor was cleared without ensuring the compliance of the terms of work order. The plea that bitumen were purchased from sources as per the work order, is question of fact and the petitioner is at liberty to raise his plea of defence before the Trial Court. The case was registered in the year 2009 and the charge sheet has been submitted on 03.12.2010.
7. Here, the petitioner had earlier moved this Court against the order taking cognizance on similar plea which has been rejected. The discharge petition has been rejected by speaking and reasoned order by the learned Court below.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition stands rejected.
