IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Riyaz Khan Faridi – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation - Opposite Party
Cr. Rev. No.321 of 2019
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Criminal Conspiracy - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The court discussed the application of judicial mind to the materials placed before it and found specific allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and causing wrongful loss to the State of Jharkhand. The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharge, emphasizing that the defense of the accused is not to be considered at the time of framing the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was alleged to be involved in a criminal conspiracy with public servants, committing offenses of cheating, forgery, and causing wrongful loss to the State of Jharkhand. The trial had commenced, and 20 witnesses were examined.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharge, emphasizing that the defense of the accused is not to be considered at the time of framing the charge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be discharged from the case based on the allegations and evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The defense of the accused is not to be considered at the time of framing the charge. The court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine whether the facts disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offense.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was dismissed, and the trial was directed to be concluded expeditiously.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. The criminal revision is directed against the order dated 18.12.2018 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1224 of 2018 arising out of R.C. 11 (A)/09-AHD-R (A) whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi has rejected the petition of this revision-petitioner filed with the prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the case.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with Mr. Bhanu Pratap Shahi- the then Health Minister, Government of Jharkhand, Dr. Pradeep Kumar- the then Secretary, Health Department, Government of Jharkhand, Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, State RCH Officer, Namkum, Ranchi, Mr Prodyut Mukherjee- a member of the tender committee, as well as some private persons ensured that the public servants by abusing their respective official positions, fraudulently and dishonestly purchased medicines, medical equipment; appliances, sundry items etc. used in hospitals from 19 (nineteen) suppliers worth Rs.130,50,79,951/- without assessing the actual requirement and without observing the formalities necessary to be followed for such purchase, at inflated rates causing a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.31,68,50,746/- to the Government of Jharkhand and corresponding gain to the petitioner and co-accused persons. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that as a part of conspiracy, though the petitioner through his company was not able to participate in the said tender as the company of the petitioner was not qualified to participate in the said tender because the return of his company in the name and style of M/s Microgen Private Limited was much less than the minimum required return of Rs.15 crore, engaged the co-accused Nand Kishore Fogla through the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Fogla being the partner of the firm M/s Nand Kishore Fogla and ensured that the said firm M/s Nand Kishore succeeds in the tender process with the illegal acts of the co-accused person public servants; by ensuring that other firms who submitted the tender are made ineligible because of stringent conditions put by the co-accused public servants who facilitated the said M/s Nand Kishore Fogla succeeding in the tender process for procurement of the different items. There is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had a meeting in a hotel of Ranchi with the co-accused Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh, Madan Mohan Prasad, Rajesh Fogla and though the petitioner claims that he has not signed the tender documents but during the investigation the tender documents were found to be signed by the petitioner and thus, it is alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has cheated the Government of Jharkhand by adopting the said modus operandi. There is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner offered the rate of Rs.1,650/- per litre of the disinfectant to the Government of Jharkhand but after taking over the charge of Health Secretary, co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the petitioner conspired with the co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar and other officials of Health Department of the State of Jharkhand and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy an order to purchase only Microgen make Disinfectant (D-125)( a product of the company of the petitioner), Fogger Machines and Dispensers by all the hospitals and officers of the State of Jharkhand was issued 28.06.2008 by the co-accused public servants. The petitioner was instrumental in cancellation of earlier tender in which the petitioner offered the rate of Rs.1,650/- per litre of the disinfectant to the Government of Jharkhand and in re-tendering process, the petitioner authorized M/s Nand Kishore Fogla to participate in the tender for Microgen products. The said M/s Nand Kishore Fogla was involved in the conspiracy with the co-accused public servant, by changing his earlier authorized organization M/s Siddhi Vinayaka Agenc
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.
M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. C.B.I, Bengaluru
P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Another
State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station
At the stage of framing the charge, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence proposed by the prosecutor are not meticulously judged.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the material on record must be evaluated to determine the existence of the ingredient....
In tender-related fraud cases, a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, allowing for charge framing even without direct evidence.
Public servants can be charged with conspiracy and misappropriation for fraudulent actions under specific schemes without a need for prior sanction after retirement, if substantial evidence supports ....
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 judgment emphasizes the need for expedited trials concerning offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and highlights the principles to determine whether a prima facie case is made ou....
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
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.