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 Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners including the order dated 24.02.2015 whereby cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (C.B.I.) Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.01 (A)/2013 (D) registered for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The brief facts of this case is that an information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation that the engineers as well as the Finance Manager of the erstwhile Kustore area of B.C.C.L, Dhanbad in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner Lal Bahadur Singh who is the main conspirator being the brother of Kumbhnath Singh proprietor of M/s. D.K.Singh, Dhanbad for the purpose of cheating and defrauding B.C.C.L, Dhanbad got allotted 16 number of work orders related to Civil (Capital) Nature of work for construction of P.C.C Road, drains, boundary and laying pipelines etc. and ensured that without completion of the said work the contractor raises bills which were paid to the contractor in connivance with the petitioners and the co-accused persons causing a wrongful loss to the B.C.C.L. to the tune of Rs. 1,23,13,354/- approximately and corresponding gain to the petitioners and the co-accused persons. It is further alleged that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons knowing pretty well that Sri Kumbhnath Singh by impersonating as the proprietor of M/s. D.K.Singh, fraudulently got 16 work orders issued and made payments by way of cheques on behalf of B.C.C.L. to Kumbhnath Singh and the said cheques were encashed by Sri Kumbhnath Singh by impersonating as the proprietor of M/s. D.K.Singh in the bank account opened at Bank of India, Ena Branch, Dhanbad with the help of the petitioner Lal Bahadur Singh.

The specific allegation against the petitioner Lal Bahadur Singh is that he is the main conspirator in the case. He was doing contract work in the said Kustore Area in different names. He started work in the name of M/s. D.K.Singh through his brother Kumbhnath Singh so that the actual beneficiary could not be detected. He had the intention from the initial stage to take the payment without doing the works, which he got allotted in favour of the said firm, though he was knowing pretty well that Sri Deepak Kumar Singh is the actual proprietor of M/s. D.K. Singh even then he introduced the account of his brother Sri Kumbhnath Singh as the proprietor of M/s. D.K. Singh. He was instrumental in opening the CD account of his said brother in which account the payments related to purported M/s. D.K. Singh which were in fact ill-gotten money used to be parked and without the active connivance of the petitioner Lal Bahadur Singh, his said brother could not have been able to get the said works in the name of M/s. D.K. Singh nor could have received the payment without executing the works.

The specific allegation against the petitioner Jyotish Chandra is that while he was working as the Additional General Manager,Kustore area of B.C.C.L during the period 2008 to April 2010 he was responsible for strict compliance of the laid down procedures of B.C.C.L/CIL for the civil contract work of B.C.C.L but he did not ensure the actual requirements of the work before forwarding the estimate proposals to B.C.C.L headquarters. It is also alleged that this petitioner forwarded the files related to the work orders in respect of which fraud has been committed and this case has been instituted; to the B.C.C.L. headquarters, in the absence of Area CGM. It is further alleged that this petitioner being one of the members