IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Amar Nath - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. - Opposite Party
Cr. M.P. No.3390 of 2019
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Criminal Conspiracy - Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120-B, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Principal Scientist, is accused of deliberately not taking action for recovery of outstanding Royalty from a co-accused private party, causing wrongful loss to CIMFR, Dhanbad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were specific allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating against the petitioner, establishing a prima facie case against him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance, should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defense version of materials or evaluate the merits of the material evidence of the complaint.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, and the order taking cognizance of the offences was not quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 08A/2016-D, whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum- Additional Sessions Judge- XI, Dhanbad has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while the petitioner was posted as Senior Principal Scientist, Standard Technology Management International (S&T) (STMIG) section in BDIL (STMIG Section) Department was responsible for collection of Royalty Dues from the co-accused-M/s Suparna Chemical Ltd. but the petitioner deliberately, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person, did not point out the manipulation made by the co-accused person public servant in the agreement dated 30.07.2003 and the petitioner failed to take action for recovery of huge outstanding royalty from the co-accused private party, which caused wrongful loss to Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad.
4. It is further alleged that the co-accused-M/s Suparna Chemical Ltd. had made payment of Royalty of Rs.35,868/- only to CMRI, Dhanbad up to 23.03.2006 but did not pay any Royalty thereafter but no action was taken by the petitioner; who was posted as Senior Principal Scientist, Standard Technology Management International (S&T) (STMIG) section of BDIL, CIMFR, Dhanbad for collection of outstanding Royalty and penal interest from the co-accused company for 9 years and he issued letters to the said company for payment of Royalty in June and September, 2015 only and due to these omissions and commissions on the part of the wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.85,02,228/- to CIMFR, Dhanbad with corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner and others occurred.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the memorandum of understanding was signed with regard to percentage of Royalty to be paid for Joint Development of Indigenous Chemical Oxygen Self Rescuer (Raksha Kawach) on 30.07.2003 to which the petitioner was not a signatory and there is specific allegation against the co-accused-Nageshwar Sahay of fraudulently altering para 7.2 of the said agreement by reducing the period of royalty from 10 to 8 years. It is further submitted that the co-accused Nageshwar Sahay also changed para 3 of Terms & Conditions at Annexure-1 of the said agreement by reducing the penal interest as 12 % instead of 18 % per annum. After execution of the said agreement at his own level without approval of Director and without getting the said alterations/manipulations authenticated by the co-accused S.K. Chaudhuri, the authorized signatory of the said agreement and the petitioner was not involved in the said manipulation either.
6. Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said company M/s Suparna Chemical Ltd. supplied/sold 25,989 number of Raksha Kavach to the different PSUs and also to various private parties during February 2005 to February 2015 valued rate of Rs.21.34 crores and M/s Suparna Chemical Ltd. was required to make payment of Royalty @ 2.1 % of basic price to CMRI as stipulated under Para 3 of Annexure-I, and basic sale value of the said Raksha Kavach was 18.55 crores, so the said company M/s Suparna Chemical Ltd. instead of paying Royalty amount of Rs.38.95 lakhs, it paid only Rs. 35,868/- to the CMRI up to 23.03.2006 and the company did not make payment of balance Royalty amount to CMRI which attracted the penal interest on the balance Royalty amount, thus the penal interest on Rs.38,95,603/- @ 18 % comes to Rs.46,06,62
At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of consideration of charge, an accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of....
The court confirmed that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to continue criminal proceedings for conspiracy and corruption, reinforcing the High Court's cautious exercise of inherent powers under....
Prevention of corruption - Petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servant member and controller of examinations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission got the marks awarded ....
The court emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defence version or the merits of the materials, and the court is not to examine the merits and d....
The court emphasized the principle that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same as issuing process, and that the application of judicial mind to the suspected commission of an offence is suff....
At the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defence version or evaluate the merits of the prosecution's evidence.
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.