SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Dinesh Chandra Jha S/o Late Surya Narain Jha - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the C.B.I. - Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 426 of 2023
Decided On : 25-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rishav Kumar
For the Respondents: Prashant Pallav, Shivani Jaluka

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 Section 482 of the CrPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B and 420 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Allegations of conspiracy against public servants who facilitated procurement of non-compliant machinery leading to significant financial losses - Charges affirmed due to prima facie evidence of misconduct and wrongful gain. (Paras 1, 28, 46, 61)

(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 482 - High Court's powers are exceptional; it must be cautious when quashing proceedings; requires sound facts to support claims that nullify accusations. (Paras 23-24)

Facts of the case:
The petition involves allegations against public servants of colluding with a foreign company to procure machinery that did not meet required specifications, resulting in wrongful loss to their employer. The CBI submitted a chargesheet against the accused based on detailed investigations revealing misconduct and financial deceit extending from 2009 to 2016. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the case against the accused, affirming that evidence presented was adequate for taking cognizance of the charges, including charges of conspiracy and corruption. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash proceedings, deeming the charges valid based on the gathered material. (Paras 54-61)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the accusations against the petitioner were substantiated by sufficient evidence to warrant continuing criminal proceedings and cognizance by the lower court. (Para 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was adequate prima facie evidence of conspiracy and misconduct sufficient to uphold the charges and emphasized the necessity of evaluating all presented material before dismissing the proceedings. The High Court maintained that the burden was on the petitioner to prove the allegations baseless. (Paras 28, 60)

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 passed in R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017-D whereby and whereunder, prima facie case has been found to be made out under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Factual Matrix

2. The accused persons (public servants) in conspiracy with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing (China) and its Indian agent cheated M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad during the period 2009 to 2016 by issuing supply order for two Road Header Machines for use in coal mining activities and making payment to the said company as well as accepting the said Machines which were not as per the technical specification, due to which, both the machines broke down / remained unutilized, resulting wrongful loss of Rs. 11.60 crores (approx.) to BCCL. Against the specification of Road Header Machines of 1.6 M, the said company supplied machines with overall height much more than specified in the NIT and supply order.

Both the machines were not accepted by the BCCL, W.J. Area, Moonidih, Dhanbad as they were not as per specification, but still the accused persons accepted the machines and made 80% payment and they tried to justify the said illegal procurement to reuse the rejected machines instead of insisting the said firm to replace or modify the machines at their cost. It was known to the accused persons that the height of machines was much higher than the available seam of coal and as such there was no way the machines could have been put to any productive use.

Accused persons failed to recommend any action against the said company or its Indian agent, who had supplied the machines, which were not as per the supply order and released 80% payment.

The Road Header Machines broke down since November, 2015 and another was with effect from 03.02.2016 due to expiry of permission time of field trial. Thus, the accused-public servants of BCCL, firm and others cheated the BCCL and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 11.60 crores (approx) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

The Director, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi vide order No. 015/COL/051-337020 dated 17.02.2017 in exercises of powers conferred under Section 8 (1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the C.V.C. Act, 2003 had directed the CBI to conduct an investigation into the manner of acquisition of equipment, whose specifications were altogether different from the tendered one, non-returning of such inappropriate machinery, making of payment even though the machinery delivered was not the one ordered for and other connected issues including the role of the officers, who dealt with the issue, foreign supplier, their Indian agent and others involved.

Accordingly, a first information report being R.C. Case No. 09(A) of 2017-D was registered on 22.11.2017 was instituted against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Accordingly, the investigation in the said case has been completed and charge-sheet dated 22.09.2021 has been submitted against the accused persons including the present petitioner under Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Cognizance of the said offence has been taken by the court concerned vide order dated 02.12.2021.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the petitioner along with other co-accused in criminal conspiracy with M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China and their Indian agent cheated the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad during the period 2009 to 2016 by issuing supply order for 02 Road Header Machines for use in coal mining works, making payment to the said company and accepting the said machines which are not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top