JUDGMENT :- Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. Heard Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Shyam Ahirkar, learned Assistant

2. Applicant is accused No.2 along with one Jagdishprasad Pannalal facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No.59 of 2003 before the Judge, Special Court for CBI at Nagpur.

3. The facts leading to the prosecution of applicant are that officers of respondent had taken surprise check of the Central Depot Stores of Central Public Works Department (CPWD) on 30-9-1997 in presence of certain officers of the CPWD and it was noticed that there was short supply of 746 MT of cement by M/s. Balaghat Cement Private Limited. CPWD had indented 1800 MT of cement, but the actual supply made was of 1054 MT only and by using blank consignee receipt certificate supplied by accused No.1 Jagdish Prasad, Assistant Engineer working with CPWD, payment for entire indented quantity of 1800 MT was claimed and thereby Government was put to loss of more than Rs.11 lacs in connivance with each other by both the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the FIR and other material relied upon by the prosecution, no case, muchless prima facie case, has been made out against the applicant and that the delay of three years in lodging FIR is also fatal. He further contends that FIR mentions the name of M/s. Balaghat Cement Private Limited and the name of applicant does not figure in conspiracy. He submits that there is no allegation that the applicant had caused any kind of inducement. Mr. Dharmadhikari referred to some correspondence to urge that there was dispute regarding quality of cement and transportation of goods. According to learned counsel, it could be the case of breach of contract. Learned counsel urges that the prosecution being false and it being an abuse of the process of law, entire proceedings in Special Case No.59 of 2003 including FIR and charge-sheet need to be quashed and set aside. In the alternative, he prays that applicant may be permitted to apply for discharge before the Special Court and the Special Court may be directed to hear that application for discharge.

5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dharmadhikari relied upon State of J. & K. Vs. Romesh Chander & Ors. reported in (1997)1 SCC 90, to urge that charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting the offence for proceeding further in the matter. In the said case, the Trial Court and the High Court had discharged the accused. The Apex Court while remanding the matter to the High Court, held that the Court has necessarily to look into the relevant law and the allegations made in the' charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence has been committed so as to frame charges for the trial; before the Court may discharge the accused. Mr. Dharmadhikari also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Limited and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780, to urge that when remedy lies in civil law, to curb unnecessary harassment to innocent party like the applicant, the criminal prosecution initiated against the applicant be quashed and set aside. My attention was invited to observations of the Apex Court made in paragraph 10 of the said judgment. It is observed by the Apex Court that there is growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families.

6. In reply, Mr. Ahirkar strenuously submitted that accused No.1 Jagdish Prasad handed over 30 blank signed consignee receipt certificates to the applicant and applicant managed to obtain payments for entire material of 1800 MT cement on the basis of those certificates. He stated th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document