Dr Kalipada Mohanta Vs. The State of Jharkhand Through Cbi - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2921 of 2016 Dr. Kalipada Mohanta …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3280 of 2016 Kewal Chouhan …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3421 of 2016 Dr. Shyam Narain @ Dr. Shyam Narayan …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr. K.P. Deo, S.C. --------- C.A.V. On 25.07.2017 Pronounced on 28/07/2017 All the three anticipatory bail application are heard together as they arose from the same F.I.R and disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the C.B.I Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)9d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.. The case of the prosecution is that information has been received from a reliable source that Sri Kalipada Mohanta, Deputy Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand (CUJ), Brambe, Ranchi, Jharkhand entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Kewal Chouhan, partner of private firm M/s Jayant Agencies petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3280 of 2016, H.B. Road, Near Plaza Cinema, Ranchi and unknown others, during the period 2010 and committed the offences of cheating, forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged fake documents as genuine and criminal misconduct and pursuance thereof, by abusing his official position, caused a wrongful gain of Rs. 7,38,414.00/- to the above mentioned private firm and corresponding wrongful loss to the Central University of Jharkhand, Brambe, Ranchi in the matter of procurement of 217 nos. of Split Air Conditioners of LG Company alongwith accessories, without resorting to open tender on the basis of bogus/fake quotations and by making fraudulent payments to the said firm. It appears that C.B.I after completion of investigation submitted final form in this case that Shri Kalipada Mohanta, Deputy Registrar while functioning in the said capacity in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with Shri Kewal Chouhan of M/s. Jayant Agencies, put up a note to Vice Chancellor on 12.03.2010 falsely claiming therein, that he alongwith OSD(Adminstration) surveyed the market on 10.03.2010 and collected quotations from three firms Viz Kamalia Sons, Ranchi, M/s New Ashok Enterprises, Ranchi and M/s Jayant Agencies, Ranchi. Out of the three quotations collected by Shri Kalipada Mohanta, the quotation of two firms Viz Kamalia sons and M/s new Ashok Enterprises are found to be fake and forged and M/s Jayant Agencies is not an authorized dealer of LG Company. He further mentioned in the note that as per the comparative chart, M/s Jayant Agencies was L-1 for LG Acs and even though M/s. Jayant Agencies was not an authorized dealer of split A.Cs of L.G Company, he dishonestly proposed to place order for 17 LG Acs from the L-1 firm M/s Jayant Agencies, Ranchi initially and thereafter, bulk purchase could be placed. Shri Kalipada Mohanta placed a purchase order on 16.03.2010 vide No. CUJ/PO/2009-10 on Jayant Agencies for supply of 17 nos of Acs Viz 7 split Acs of 2 ton, 10 split Acs of 1.5 ton @ Rs. 29,990 and Rs. 24,990 each respectively along with stablizer and stand. So far as petitioner, Kewal Chouhan in A.B.A. No. 3280 of 2016 is concerned that M/s Jayant Agencies was not authorized dealer of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, however, the firm purchased the split Acs. Of two tons @ Rs. 26,500/- and 1.5 tons @ Rs. 22,000/- from the authorized dealer M/s Maruti Sales, Ranchi and supplied the same to CUJ, Brambe Ranchi at higher rate. The firm initially supplied 17 nos of split Acs to CUJ, Ranchi i.e. 7 Acs of 2 tons and 10 A.Cs of 1.5 tons at higher rates of Rs. 29,990 and Rs. 24,9990/- respectively as compared to the rates of the authorized dealer M/s Maruti Sales. Thus CUJ was put to a wrongful loss of Rs. 3490 per split A.C of 2 tons and Rs. 2990/- per split A.C of 1.5 tons Viz Rs. 54,420/- (Rs. 24,430+ Rs. 29,990/-). The firm M/s Jayant Agencies further purchased 200 split A.Cs of 1.5 tons from M/s Maruti Sales, Ranchi, during the period April and May 2010 @ Rs. 21,300/- per A.C and sold the same to CUJ @ Rs. 24,990/- by charging Rs. 3690/- extra per A.C the firm caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 7,38,000/- to the central University of Jharkhand. The firm has thus caused total loss of Rs. 7,92,420/- to Central University of Jharkhand and corresponding wrongful gain. So far as petitioner, Shri Shyam Narayan, petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3421 of 2016 is concerned while functioning as Registrar and Chairman of purchase committee on 22.03.2010 wrongly recommended for placing repeat order on M/s Jayant Agencies for purchase of 200 nos. of Acs which was estimated at Rs. 60/- lakhs on the ground that M/s Jayant Agencies had earlier supplied the A.Cs. To CUJ and without resorting to an open tender as required under Rule 150 of General Financial Rules, 2005 since there is no provision in the said rules for placing repeat order on the same firm. Subsequently, on 26.03.2010 a purchase order vide No.- CUJ/PO/2009-10 was issued in favour of M/s Jayant Agencies for supply of 200 nos of LG15 ton Split AC @ Rs. 24,990/- per unit alongwith equal numbers of accessories Viz. Voltage Stablizer, Stand etc. which is duly signed by Dr. Shyam Narain and members of purchase committee. A.B.A. No. 2921 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Dr. Kalipada Mohanta has submitted that from perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents annexed thereto, it transpires that the sanction for prosecution of the present petitioner was granted by the Vice Chancellor on the ground that the Vice Chancellor being the authority competent to remove the petitioner from the office and as such he is competent to accord sanction for prosecuting the present petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Registrar in the Central University of Jharkhand on 17.03.2010 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Executive Council of the Central University of Jharkhand. That the petitioner states that Statue 25 (2) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 deals “removal of employees of University “ which reads as follows:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the terms of the contract of appointment or of any other terms and condition of service of the employees, the Executive Council in respect of teachers and other academic staff, and the appointing authority in respect of other employees shall have the power to remove a teacher or a member of the academic staff or other employee, as the case may be, on grounds of misconduct . It is further submitted that during course of investigation petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and the C.B.I did not arrest the petitioners. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is completed, the petitioners fully cooperated in the investigation and final form has been submitted, the petitioner has never been arrested during investigation and trial will take some time. It is further submitted that the prevailing price of items for procurements by Central Government are fixed by Government of India, Directorate General of Supply & Disposals (DGS & D), which fixes the bench-mark price for Government procurements. The prevailing DGS&D rat of LG Acs of two categories during the period January, 2010 to May, 2010 was Rs. 27,644.49/- and Rs. 26,290/- respectively for 1.5 tonnes Acs of the three star rating and Rs. 31,598/- and 32,733/- for two tonne Acs of three star rating respectively. The installation charges were to be paid Rs. 1,500/- per AC in addition. It is also submitted that M/s Jayant Agencies had quoted a less rate than the Government rates prevailing at that relevant point of time ans such no loss whatsoever to the Central University of Jharkhand has been caused by the aforesaid transaction, hence petitioner deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. No. 2921 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Kewal Chouhan has submitted that the petitioner is neither the partner nor the employee of M/s. Jayant Agencies which is evident from Annexure-3. It is also submitted that during course of investigation C.B.I has no collect any document to show that the petitioner petitioner had ever signed in the document being either the proprietor or partner of M/s. Jayant Agencies and during course of investigation he has never arrested and whenever C.B.I is directed to appear, petitioner has appeared before the C.B.I and fully cooperated in the investigation and trial will take some time, hence petitioner deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. A.B.A. No. 3421 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Dr. Shyam Narain @ Dr. Shyam Narayan has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as first Registrar of the Central University of Jharkhand by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education on 12.02.2010 and he was assigned the duty of purchase and responsibility of store in the year 25.03.2010 and, later on made Chairman of the Purchase Committee which comprised of 7 members related to the said University. It is also submitted that C.B.I after investigation submitted final form and trial will take some time and C.B.I had not collected any evidence showing Quid Pro quo and petitioners are being public servant and there is no wrongful loss, hence petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the C.B.I while pressing the anticipatory bail application has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there is allegation for omission and commission by the petitioners causing huge loss to the public money, hence they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, final form, material collected by the C.B.I against the petitioners and also the fact that final form has been submitted in these cases, trial will take some time, during investigation these petitioners co-operated in the investigation and they were never arrested by the I.O, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 16(A)/2014-R, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Ranchi district. Petitioners shall fully cooperate with the C.B.I and also appear physically on each and every date before the trial Court till framing of charge. If they want exemption from appearance, they will inform the C.B.I in advance and after taking necessary permission from Special Court, they may be exempted from personal appearance. The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial. The petitioners shall deposit their pass port (if any) before the trial Court. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial Court as well as a copy of this order be handed over to the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satayendra/