ORDER

1. Heard.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in case No. RC AC 1 2002 A 0001 titled CBI versus J.K. Singh and Others under Section 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Initially the complaint was filed against M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Limited (MISL, for short) and Mr. J.K. Singh and Mr. I.B. Singh. However, by summoning order dated 7th February, 2005, cognizance was not taken against MISL but process was issued against Mr. J.K. Singh, Mr. I.B. Singh and Ms. Rita Singh.

3. Ms. Rita Singh filed a petition under Section 482 being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 810/2005. The said petition was allowed vide judgment dated 17th January, 2008, inter alia, recording that there was no evidence or material on the basis of which learned Metropolitan Magistrate should have issued summons against her.

4. A Petition filed by Mr. J.K. Singh, Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1164/2006, was also allowed vide judgment dated 23rd January, 2009. In this judgment, learned single Judge has examined the charge sheet and the contents thereof in paragraphs 3 to 5. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraphs are reproduced below:-

“3. The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation („CBI?), which is the investigating agency in this case, is that on 6th December 1994 MISL issued a letter to BHEL under the signature of its Vice President whereby it stated that two sets of dispatch documents along with invoices and inspection certificate were to be sent to the Associate President of MISL and another four sets recommending release of payment to MISL Jajpur. It was stated that on the recommendation being made from Jajpur payment would be released to BHEL by MISL. According to the CBI, that these instructions regarding payment were contrary to the mode of payment stipulated in the letter of intent. It is stated that had this been done, it would have been ensured that the locomotives would be dispatched to MISL only after receipt of the full payment through the nationalized bank. The specific allegation in the chargesheet is that “M/s. MISL with the intention of cheating BHEL, changed the mode of payment eliminating the contractual clause wherein dispatch hereby documents were to be routed through a nationalized bank which would have ensured fool proof performance of contractual obligations by M/s. MISL.” The allegation against the Petitioner is that he “intentionally and deliberately” changed the mode of payment.

4. The case of the CBI is that although N.K. Garg of the BHEL wrote a letter on 29th December 1994 to the MISL requesting for the name of the bank through which the documents were to be routed, as per the directions of the Petitioner the General Manager (Finance), MISL was instructed not to furnish the name of the bank to BHEL. Two locomotives were dispatched by BHEL Jhansi on 30th March 1995 to the factory of MISL Jajpur. The amount of Rs.78,98,000/- was received by Shri N.K. Garg of BHEL vide cheque Nos.672554 to 672561 dated 7th June 1995 issued by MISL. The third locomotive was dispatched to MISL on the basis of a letter dated 20th May 1995 of Shri A.K. Pandey of BHEL. A sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the MISL Delhi office was received by Shri N.K. Garg of the BHEL by two cheques No.672601 and 672602 dated 15th June 1995 for Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs respectively. Shri A.K. Pandey, BHEL wrote a letter dated 22nd June 1995 to the Associate Vice President, MISL, New Delhi mentioning that payment of 10% for all the five locomotives had been received and 70% payment for the first two locomotives had also been received but that 70% payment against the dispatch of the third locomotive was outstanding. Thereafter the fourth locomotive was dispatched on 17th July 1995 and the fifth on 24th July 1995 without any decision being taken on the non-payment of the full amount on the earlier three locomotives which had already been dispatch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document