Judgment:
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.109 of 2013 Manoj Kumar BhagatPetitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand through C.B.I..Opposite Party CORAM:HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr.M. Khan, Advocate 11/ 30.8.13. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. No.08(A) of 2010 including the order dated 18.3.2010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case was registered under Sections 120B, 420,467, 468,471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that one Contractor, M/s.PKS & Company having claimed to have purchased bitumen and used it in the road, raised bills on the basis of invoices said to have been issued by IOCL and withdrew the money but in fact, those invoices were fake and thereby, put the Sate exchequer to a loss, but this allegation has nothing to do with this petitioner, rather the petitioner was made accused during investigation, when it was found that this petitioner had sold to M/s. PKS & Company certain drums of the bitumen which had never been purchased from IOCL and on this premise it has been alleged that in order to facilitate the said Contractor, M/s. PKS & Company, to withdraw the money illegally, took plea that he had sold bitumen to M/s. PKS & Company but there has been no requirement of purchasing of bitumen from a government undertaking, if the work allotted is of the value less than Rs.10,00,000/- one is free to purchase bitumen from anywhere. In such situation, even if the petitioner had sold certain drums of the bitumen to the said company, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. As against this, Mr.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that during investigation, it was found that this petitioner claimed to have been entrusted with a job of construction of Jamtara- Rupnarayanpur Road in the year 2003-04 for which he had procured bitumen but since the road could not be completed, bitumen purchased remained unused and out of it, 21 drums of bitumen was sold to M/s.PKS & Company. To this effect even an affidavit was filed. During investigation IOCL did inform that no such person named Manoj Kumar Bhagat has been recorded in its record as its customer and thereby he certainly seems to have connived with M/s. PKS & Company by taking a plea that he had sold bitumen to him facilitating him to withdraw the money on the basis of receipt granted by the petitioner and therefore, the court does not seem to have committed any illegality in taking cognizance. Upon it Mr.Kashyap, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is not necessary for the contractor to purchase bitumen from the Government Company, if the work allotted is worth less than Rs.10,00,000/- and in that event, if the petitioner had sold certain drums of bitumen of other Company, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on one hand, it was found by the C.B.I that the petitioner, who claimed to have sold 21 drums of bitumen to M/s. PKS & Company had never purchased bitumen from a Government Company and thereby the petitioner seems to have facilitated main accused to withdraw money on the basis of bills submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not purchased bitumen from the Government Company, rather he was free to purchase bitumen from anywhere if the work order is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and on purchasing left out bitumen to the extent of 21 drums was sold to M/s. PKS & Company. This seems to be a defence which cannot be looked into at this stage though it may be material and relevant during trial. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, it never warrants to be interfered with. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/