The court has the power to frame charges against an accused person if there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against him.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking setting aside of order on charge dated 24th July 2017 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, CBI Court, Patiala House in CC No. 01/2013 and for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been charged under Section 420 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”).

2. The brief facts of the instant case, as alleged in the FIR, are that V.K. Verma, the then DG, Organizing Committee (OC), Commonwealth Games, 2010 and other officers of the OC entered into a criminal conspiracy with Suresh Kumar Seenghal, Director of M/s. Premier Brands Pvt. Ltd. (PBPL), with Chairman, M/s. Compact Disc India Ltd. and others. The OC officers scrapped the process of initial Request for Proposal (RFP) on flimsy grounds after receipt of the proposal of PBPL, to extend undue favour to PBPL by appointing the said company as Official Master Licensee for Merchandising and Online and Retail Concessionaire for Commonwealth Games, 2010 (CWG) against a minimum royalty amount of Rs. 7.05 crores. PBPL, however, after earning a huge amount from the CWG band properties did not pay anything to the OC and the cheque amounting Rs. 3.525 Crores were dishonoured by the Bank on instructions from PBPL, which caused pecuniary advantage to Suresh Kumar Seenghal and PBPL and corresponding loss to the Govt. Exchequer.

3. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 24th January 2013 under Section 120B read with 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 upon which the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance and ordered charge under Section 228 of Code against the petitioners and all other accused persons under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 420 of IPC after the final report.

4. The petitioner, thus, challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. Court on the grounds of patent defects and errors of jurisdiction. It was contended that the Ld. Judge had not satisfied the constituents of conspiracy as alleged between Petitioner and co accused who allegedly recommended acceptance of Technical Bid of PBPL and later recommended its appointment as Master Licensee.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Ld. Special Judge has failed to appreciate the arguments advanced by the accused during the impugned proceedings. The perusal of entire evidence, even if taken on face value, does not make out any case as is being alleged by the Prosecution against the Petitioner.

6. It is submitted that the impugned order erroneously records that in a meeting held in the afternoon of 24th February 2010, the petitioner raised objection to the 1st RFP which led to its annulment and paved the way for issuance of fresh tender (the 2nd RFP) making it possible for accused company (PBPL) to participate in the L&M program of Organising Committee. The impugned order erroneously records that the 2nd RFP was only for the left-out items from the 1st RFP and that the 1st RFP was at the last stage of formalization.

7. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner further submitted that the impugned Order, without any basis, holds that the petitioner met with the Accused No. -7 Chairman, PBPL on 19th January 2010 and thereafter the decision to issue the fresh tender was taken. The impugned Order holds that the 1st RFP did not mandatorily require an Organising Committee Finance Committee's (OCFC) approval and thus annulment of the 1st RFP was on a flimsy ground. The impugned Order further holds that the Petitioner thwarted the post fact