Sanjiv Paul vs Union of India through C. B. I.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Sanjiv Paul - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. - Respondent
Cr. RevisionNo.571 of 2019, Cr. RevisionNo.676 of 2019, Cr. Revision No.690 of 2019, Cr. Revision No.764 of 2019, Cr.M.P. No.02 of 2022, Cr.M.P. No.03 of 2022, Cr.M.P. No.13 of 2022, Cr. Revision No.133 of 2020
Decided on : 18-08-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sidhartha Luthra Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Pathak, Advocate (Cr. Rev. 133/2020) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocates (Cr. Rev. 571/2019) Mr. Sidhartha Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate (Cr. Rev. 676/2019) Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate (Cr. Rev. 690/2019) Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate (Cr. Rev. 764/2019) Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha Mr. Akchansh Kishore (Cr.M.P. 2/22, 3/22, 13/22)
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to ASGI

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2), (1)(d) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 239, 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Contract - Financial loss - Criminal conspiracy - Not eligible to purchase tender documents - Petitions arise out of order whereby discharge petition filed by petitioners/accused persons has been rejected – Held, Investigating authority concluded that work was completed as per drawings and no inconsistency could be found - Thus, on basis of memorandum, allegation leveled against petitioner with regard to conspiracy and corruption ought to be brushed aside - There been a criminal conspiracy and prior meeting of mind to extend undue benefit to JUSCO, they would have all prior information of tender and there would not have been last minute rush to obtain tender documents and bid documents would have been tailored to minutest details to raise any question of doubt - Court is of view that this is a fit case for interfering with impugned order of framing of charge as materials are not sufficient to raise grave suspicion that any offence was committed in tender process and in decision of awarding contract in favour of TPE and JUSCO - On grounds on which prosecution seeks trial of accused petitioners are not sufficient for framing of charge under sections 420 and 120 B IPC read with sections 13(2) and 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act - Any trial on these grounds will be an exercise in futility as these materials do not make out offence proposed to be charged and will consume valuable judicial time and also put petitioner accused to grind of protracted litigation - Impugned order is set aside, accused persons are discharged of offences - Petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in RC Case no. 4 (A)/2006 (R) registered under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereby and whereunder the discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners/accused persons has been rejected. Since all the revision arise from the common order therefore they have been heard together and will be disposed by common order.

2. Cr. M.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 13 of 2022 were filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order of cognizance and entire proceeding. This Court vide order dated 8.7.2022 permitted these cases to be heard analogous with the present revision petitions for the reason that earlier the revision petitions filed by these petitioners against the discharge petitions were permitted to be withdrawn for being heard in these criminal miscellaneous petitions. These petitions have been also been heard together and shall be disposed of by common order.

PROSECUTION CASE

3. A First Information Report was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI, Ranchi P.S. on 30.03.2006 under Sections 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the following :-

(i) A.K. Khan, Asst. Professor, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur.

(ii) K.N. Jha, Chief (Planning, Engineering & Construction), M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Service Company Limited.

(iii) M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as JUSCO) represented by Sri Sanjiv Paul, Managing Director.

4. As per the FIR the contract was awarded in favour of Jamshedpur Utility Services Company (hereinafter called JUSCO) under a criminal conspiracy joined by A.K. Khan, Assistant Professor, National Institute of Technology, K.N. Jha, Head of the TPE and Mr. Sanjeev Paul representing JUSCO deliberately ignoring offers of L-1 to L-8 parties thereby causing financial loss of Rs.162.68 lakh (Rs.700.48-Rs.537.80) to NIT.

a. Sh A. K. Khan, the then Asst. Professor NIT, Jamshedpur, in the capacity of Chairman of Building Advisory Committee negotiated with L-6, to L-9 bidders instead of L-1 in the matter of appointment of Architect-cum-Consultant and dishonestly and fraudulently recommended the name of Town Planning Engineering (TPE) of Tata Steel for the appointment of Architect-cum-Consultant by ignoring offers of L-1 to L-8 T.P.E. was L-9 in the tender.

b. Sh. K. N. Jha, as head of TPE (Tata Steel) and as a consultant got the work of Civil and electrical work contract awarded in favour of M/s. Jamshedpur Utilities & Service Company Ltd. (JUSCO) represented by its Managing Director, Shri Sanjiv Paul in spite of the fact that M/s JUSCO was not the L-1 bidder and also by ignoring the bid of M/s Adisons Constructions Ltd., Kolkata which was the L-1 party. M/s Adisons had quoted a rate of 537.80 lakhs, whereas, the work was awarded to M/s JUSCO for Rs.700.48 Lakhs and that too with a condition of rebate of 2.5% against grant of 10% interest free mobilization advance.

c. M/s JUSCO was not eligible to purchase the tender documents as per the condition laid down in Notice Inviting Tender in absence of requisite Income Tax Clearance Certificate and was also not registered with State Tax and Central Tax authorities at the time of submitting Tender documents. M/s JUSCO had not submitted requisite certificate (credential) at the time of submitting its tender for the said Civil and Electrical work.

d. Erstwhile Town Division of Tata Steel later became JUSCO and Town Planning and Engineering was part of Town Division of M/s Tata Steel. TPE headed by K.N. Jha was selected as Architect cum Consultant and was associated with the Tendering process. It was TPE which had