IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Dr. Sarat Chandra Das, son of Late Chandra Mohan Das - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No. 2414 of 2016
Decided On : 26-08-2020
Corruption - Quashing of F.I.R. - Indian Penal Code, Section 420/467/468/471/409/120B/109, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as the Chairman of the Purchase Committee, is alleged to have committed various offences in the purchase of a C.T. Scan Machine for a medical college, including cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner sought to quash the F.I.R. and all proceedings against him, claiming innocence and citing delay in filing the F.I.R.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that delay in filing the F.I.R. by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and to discard it. The court also noted serious allegations against the petitioner and his absconding status, leading to a dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Delay in filing the F.I.R., Serious allegations against the petitioner, Quashing of F.I.R. and proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing the F.I.R. does not automatically discredit the prosecution case. Serious allegations and absconding status of the accused can impact the decision to quash the F.I.R.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. and proceedings against the petitioner was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 14.09.2016 along with all the proceeding of A.C.B. No. 09 of 2016 which has been registered against the petitioner vide Vigilance Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 09 of 2016, under Section 420/467/468/471/409/ 120B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the F.I.R. of the instant case has been registered against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner in capacity of the Chairman of the Purchase Committee, purchased C.T. Scan Machine for Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad and in purchase of the said machine worth Rs.1,80,00,000/-, the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons committed the offence of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust by public servant by obtaining for himself pecuniary advantage. It is alleged that though the head of the department of Radiology gave the proposal for purchase of C.T. Scan Machine of Siemens Make yet decision was taken at the level of the petitioner to purchase the C.T. Scan Machine of Shimadzu Empire, Original made in Japan on the condition to make the payment after installation and satisfactory functioning of the said machine. It is further alleged that the petitioner made the payment of 90% of the amount in respect of the purchase of the machine in violation of the D.G.S & D rules for such purchase. It is also alleged that the said payment of 90% of the amount was made before the said machine reached India. There is also allegation against the petitioner that the notice of the tender was not approved by the competent authority and in the said notice, estimated cost, bill of quantity amount and earnest money was not mentioned in violation of the financial rules. It is further alleged that though it is contended that there was a meeting of the Purchase Committee on 03.03.2004 but the copy of the decision taken after obtaining the technical bid is not in the file so it cannot be ascertained as to how many firms/agencies has submitted the tender documents. It is also alleged that though the date of installation of the machine has been shown on 16.11.2005 but the fact that by letter dated 21.10.2005, the successor Superintendent of the petitioner in the said Medical College & Hospital requested the Chief Minister of Jharkhand to inaugurate the said machine on 24.10.2005 shows that there is manipulation also.
It is also alleged that though notice was invited by two bid process but in the file there is no proof of any technical evaluation and accordingly the decision in the tender and issuance of work order without technical evaluation is not in accordance with the rule. It is further alleged that the C.T. Scan Machine was not purchased as per the D.G.S & D rule.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Niraj Kishore, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any wrong. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. as though the alleged occurrence is of 03.03.2004 but the F.I.R. was registered only on 14.09.2016. It is further submitted that there is no violation of any rule or procedure in the purchase of the said machine and out of the 17 bidders Shimadzu Empire was found the lowest rate bidder and accordingly the order of purchase was passed and was placed with the said company. It is next submitted that the petitioner was the Superintendent of P.M.C.H., Dhanbad w.e.f. 17.12.2003 to 04.10.2004 and Dr. Geeta Verma took over the charge from the petitioner from 05.10.2004 and thereafter the petitioner continued as the Principal of the said college. It is further submitted that Dr. Geeta Verma received the consignment of C.T. Scan Machine with good packing condition on 27.11.2
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.