The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on prima facie indications of conspiracy and financial irregularities, and the allowance for further investigation to establish the role of the petitioner as a conspirator.

By the Court. - This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 of 2011 (Special Case No. 2 of 2011) registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471, 477-A and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties as also before noticing the case of the prosecution as has been made out in the FIR, the background of the case is necessarily to be taken notice of which is being noted hereinunder.

3. Jharkhand State Electricity Board issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for undertaking work under the Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme (for short APDRP) under Package 'D' for Jamshedpur Town stipulating therein that the work would be targeted one which requires to be completed within time schedule and that the price quoted by the bidder shall not be subjected to variation on any account. Making it further clear that no escalation in prices shall be admissible on any account to the bidder, Same clauses were reiterated when the work orders were issued to M/s. Ramji Power Company Limited (for short M/s RPCL) and even in the agreement entered into in between the JSEB and M/s. RPCL they were part of the terms and conditions. M/s. RPCL could not execute the work by the due date i.e., 26.9.2005. However, time was extended from 26.9.2005 to 31.7.2007 without putting any clause for escalation of price but with imposition of liquidated damages (L.D.). M/s. RPCL agreed to that proposal and assured that the work will be completed within extended time and it will not be going for any arbitration. When it was found that M/s. RPCL contrary to its promise did not even start the work by 31.7.2007, the then Chairman, JSEB directed the Chief Engineer. APDRP to put up agenda for termination of contract of M/s. RPCL in the next meeting of the Board of JSEB. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, APDRP put up the agenda to the then Member (Technical), JSEB, who in connivance with the other accused held back the concerned file till the transfer of the then Chairman, JSEB.

4. Thereupon Mr. P.K. Sinha, the then Electrical Executive Engineer., APDRP, put note in the file for appointment of Arbitrator and for waiver of penalty after having approval of the Chairman. Thereupon, the Arbitrator was appointed who gave award. Pursuant to that, payments were made to the contractor-M/s. RPCL. Thereupon, when it was detected that grave financial irregularities have been committed in making payments to M/s. RPCL by adopting malpractices by the officers of the Board, FIR was lodged with the Vigilance alleging therein that the time extended upto July, 2007 had been granted to M/s. RPCL but with stipulation that there should be no price escalation and that was subject to imposition of L.D. In spite of that, when it was found that M/s. RPCL has even not started the work, the then Chairman, JSEB asked the concerned officers to place the agenda in the next meeting of the Board for termination of contract but the officers of the Board having hatched conspiracy, never placed the agenda before the Board for termination of contract rather Mr. P.K. Sinha, Electrical Executive Engineer, APDRP, placed the me for appointment of an Arbitrator, waiver of penalty and extension of time. Thereupon, at the behest of said P.K. Sinha and other officers of the Board including the Director of Finance, an Arbitrator was appointed who gave award in favour of M/s. RPCL and pursuant to that, the Board had to pay a sum of Rs.10.87 Crores. That amount also included the amount on account of price variation but that was never the subject matter of dispute and, therefore, the Authority of the Board should have contested the award but the Authority of the Board without examining the merit of the award placed the file for approval of the award of the sole Arbitrator and then the then Chief Engineer,