Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
S.K. CHAKRABARTI
Gurupada Mandal
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
C.R.R.No.031 of 2011
Decided On : 05-09-2011
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - FORGERY, WRONGFUL LOSS, AND WRONGFUL GAIN - TENDER PROCESS - ALTERATION OF TENDER DOCUMENTS - LACK OF PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL AGAINST PETITIONER - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - SECTION 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 13(1)(d), 13(2).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy with a contractor to award a tender for the construction of quarters at an enhanced value. It was alleged that the petitioner altered the tender documents by forging figures and overwriting amounts to increase the tender value, causing a wrongful loss to the Administration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no prima facie material against the petitioner to support the allegations of forgery, wrongful loss, or wrongful gain. It observed that the petitioner had forwarded all relevant documents to the accepting authority, the Superintending Engineer, who did not raise any suspicion or detect any act of interpolation or overwriting to the prejudice of the Administration.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of forgery, wrongful loss, or wrongful gain against the petitioner? 2. Whether the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations made in the FIR did not disclose offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, or 120B IPC. It reasoned that there was no dishonest inducement, forgery of a valuable document, or use of a false document as genuine before the acceptance of the lowest bid. There was also no evidence of criminal conspiracy as the petitioner's role was limited to dispatching the tender papers and he had no discretionary power to accept or reject the bid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that their continuation would be an abuse of the process of law. However, the court clarified that its order would not prevent the petitioner's employer from conducting an administrative inquiry or taking appropriate disciplinary action against him.
S.K. CHAKRABARTI, J.
1. In the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the propriety of prosecution in Special Case No. 05 of 2011 arising out of SPE/CBI/Port Blair R.C. 121 of 2011 A 0002 dated 28.07.2011 under Section 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now pending before the court of learned Special Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair has been assailed.
2. The petitioner contends that on 01.02.2011 he was posted as Executive Engineer in North Andaman Construction Division, Andaman Public Works Department at Mayabunder. On that date a tender was floated by the Administration for construction of 20 nos. of Type-III quarters (D/S) at Sub Division-I, Mayabunder under T.O. No. Tender-DB/NACD/MB/2010-11/126 dated 20.01.2011. The tender was opened there on 25.02.2011 by the Assistant Engineer while the petitioner was on leave. It was found that the offer of one Shri C.M.Roy amounting to Rs. 2,40,75,380/- was the lowest bidder. On 07.03.2011 all the eight(8) original tenders received including the lowest bidder with comparative statement, proforma accompanying the tender, Photostat copy of the newspaper cutting, tender issue and opening register, basic rate of men, materials and machineries etc. were forwarded to the Superintending Engineer(Plg), CE’s Office, APWD, Port Blair in his letter No. TN- 1/GPA/DB/MACD/MB/2010-11/467. The said offer was accepted on 30.03.2011 by the competent authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer (Plg) subject to certain conditions. On 06.04.2011 the lowest bidder Shri C.M.Roy was duly informed regarding acceptance of his offer and was requested to submit performance guarantee of Rs.12,03,769/- within 15 days of the issuance of the order. On 29.04.2011 Shri C.M.Roy was asked to attend the office of the petitioner within 10 days to complete the formal agreement and was asked to contact the Assistant Engineer-I, Mayabunder and Assistant Engineer-IV(E&M), Mayabunder under NACD, Mayabunder for taking possession of the site and starting the work.
3. On 28.07.2011, the opposite party, Central Bureau of Investigation, received the source information that during 2010-2011 the petitioner while functioning as Executive Engineer, NACD, APWD, Mayabunder misused/abused his official position as a government servant and entered into a criminal conspiracy with said C.M. Roy, a government contractor whereby the petitioner awarded the aforesaid assignment for construction of 20 Type-III quarters to said C.M.Roy at Rs. 2,40,72,212/-. While awarding such work order he had altered the amount mentioned against certain items by forgery thereby enhancing the tender value by Rs. 32,68,168/- i.e. total Rs 2,73,40,378/- from Rs. 2,40,72,212/- and thereby caused wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 32,68,168/-.
4. On the basis of such information, the opposite party registered the aforesaid case on 28.07.2011 and on the basis of such false prosecution he was placed under suspension on 05.08.2011.
5. The petitioner further contends that as per manual the scrutiny and preparation of the comparative chart made by the Divisional Accountant required approval of the Superintending Engineer who is the competent authority. The acceptance of the tender on the basis of the communication made by the petitioner does not disclose prima-facie commission of any offence of forgery, wrongful loss or wrongful gain as alleged in the FIR because the work has not yet been completed and no payment has been made and that actual amount of lowest bidder was communicated by him to the accepting authority. In fact there has been no actual wrongful loss or wrongful gain on account of so called forgery. He had forwarded all the relevant papers to the accepting authority i.e. Superintending Engineer who did not raise any suspicion and detected any act of interpolation or over writing to the prejudice to the Administration. Therefore, furt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
