JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Kumar Basant, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-C.B.I.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with R.C. 4(A)/10(D), dated 25.01.2010 registered under Sections 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional District Judge, Dhanbad.

4. During the pendency of the present case, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was submitted against other persons and no charge-sheet was submitted as against the present petitioner and in the charge-sheet, the reason for not submitting the charge-sheet against the petitioner has also been mentioned as follows: -

“The criminality on the part of V. P. Singh, the then GM (S&M), BCCL, Head Quarter, Dhanbad could not be found/established hence he is not being charge sheeted. Udayan Bhattacharya, retired GM (S&M), BCCL, Head Quarter, Dhanbad has been found having committed lapses in ensuring compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement vis-a-vis his failure to check diversion of coal. For this he is liable to be dealt departmentally, hence charge sheet is not being filed against Udayan Bhattacharya and V.P. Singh, aforesaid.”

5. It appears that the learned court below vide order dated 17.10.2011 took cognizance of offence against other co-accused as well as the present petitioner by recording that from the case-diary and charge-sheet, it is clear that the aforesaid private companies are totally non-existent though some of them are existing at the given premises, but they do not have any manufacturing activity and they have got their project approved in connivance with the officer of CMPDIL and managed to get their case for execution for Fuel Supply Agreement with BCCL recommended by V. P. Singh and Udayan Bhattacharya by abuse of their official position. It has also been mentioned that investigation established that verification of the documents was the sole responsibility of CGM/GM (S&M) of subsidiary company i.e. BCCL as mentioned at Para-E of SI. No. 05 of the Minutes of coordination, the meeting of CVOs of CIL and its subsidiary companies held on 05.02.2005 at Varanasi. Udayan Bhattacharya was the GM (S&M), BCCL, Dhanbad during the relevant period, whose acts and omissions resulted in wrongful loss to BCCL to the tune of Rs. 16 to 24 crores approximately and corresponding wrongful gain to the said parties or the public servants.

The learned court below found sufficient material available on record to proceed ahead against the accused persons who were charge-sheeted as well as the present petitioner and took cognizance of offence by mentioning that the present petitioner has already retired, hence sanction for prosecution is not required against him. The cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. This Court finds that one interlocutory application being I.A. (Cr.) No. 2035 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner in the present case, seeking amendment of the main petition and challenging the order taking cognizance. This petition for amendment was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2012. Accordingly, in the present case, the entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance against the petitioner, is under challenge.

Arguments of the petitioner

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner including order taking cognizance submits that the investigating officer found during investigation that there has been lapses on the part of the present petitioner in ensuring