IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of corruption must be supported by substantial evidence, and that mechanical or arbitrary actions by investigative authorities do not suffice to implicate individuals in criminal charges.

JUDGMENT :

Satyavrat Verma, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the Vigilance.

2. The present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-1st, Patna in Special Case No.66A of 2013, arising out of Vigilance Case No.61 of 13, whereby the learned Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being no material collected during the investigation, the Vigilance in a mechanical manner submitted supplementary charge-sheet and the learned Court also without due application of judicial mind took cognizance. It is further submitted that an F.I.R. being Vigilance Case No.61 of 2013 came to be instituted alleging that in view of the inquiry conducted by the vigilance with regard to illegality committed in purchase of medicines, chemicals, reagents, machines etc. by the officials of P.M.C.H. in the Financial Year 2008-09 and 2009-10. The following corrupt practices surfaced:-

I) For Financial Year 2008-09, the Government was put to loss of Rs.3,34,27,974/-on account of purchase of medicines, chemicals, machines etc. at the rate higher than MRP in connivance of the officials,

II) For Financial Year 2009-10, the Government was put to loss of Rs.3,35,20,892/-on account of purchase of medicines, chemicals, machines etc. at the rate higher than the MRP in connivance of the officials.

III) For Financial Year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Government was put to loss of Rs.4,38,24,498/-on account of purchase of parts of machine at rates higher than MRP in connivance of the officials.

IV) For Financial Year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Government was put to loss of Rs.1,55,89,606/-on account of purchasing medicines, chemicals, parts in much access of requirement at a rate higher than the MRP in connivance of the officials and the purchased articles expired without being used.

V) In view of the above, on account of corrupt practices and connivance of the officials an amount of Rs.12,63,62,970/-of the Government was misappropriated in the Financial Year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was instituted against 15 accused persons.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R, it would manifest that the same relates to misappropriation of government fund in purchasing medicines, chemicals, machines reagents, parts etc. at a rate higher than the MRP and thereafter, the aforesaid articles also expired without use. It is also submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR.

5. The learned counsel further submits that it is relevant to submit certain facts which preceded the institution of the FIR which prima facie would demonstrate that the petitioner came to be implicated in a mechanical manner based on suspicion.

6. It is submitted that petitioner vide Memo Dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure-1 to the quashing application) was posted as Deputy Superintendent, P.M.C.H. with an objective to tighten the administrative set up of P.M.C.H. Further, petitioner was given additional charge of surgical store of P.M.C.H. in 2007, but on account of nature of duty being rendered by the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent, P.M.C.H., the entire responsibility of the surgical store was given to Pharmacist surgical store Vide Memo Dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-2 to the quashing application). Further, the Superintendent, P.M.C.H. by his letter dated 28.01.2008 (Annexure-3 to the quashing application) made it clear that the file relating to surgical store should be sent for further action only after certification by the Pharmacist, the said direction was communicated to the Pharmacists, medical