Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Rajiv Ranjan - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
CRLMC No. 1197 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Section 482 - Quashing of Charge-sheet - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code 1860 - 13(2), 13(1)(d), 120-B, 420, 13(1)(d) - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner as there was no evidence to implicate the petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court also emphasized the need for a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d). The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Technical Advisor, was charged with offences under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PCA, 1988. The allegations were related to a tendering process at Rourkela Steel Plant. The petitioner was accused of favoring a private company in the tendering process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to implicate the petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court also emphasized the need for a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d). The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in favoring a private company in a tendering process at Rourkela Steel Plant and the applicability of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court also exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner as there was no evidence to implicate the petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court also emphasized the need for a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d). The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Panigrahi, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed with a prayer to quash the Charge-sheet No.05/2020 dated 21.12.2020 in CBI/SPE/ACB, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.RC-06(A)/2018-BBS dated 07.06.2018 for the alleged offences u/s.13(2), r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCA') and u/s 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge CBI, Court No.1, Bhubaneswar.
2. The facts leading to the present matter, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the S.P., CBI, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bhubaneswar received certain information from his sources that one Mr. B.P. Verma while working as Executive Director (Works), Rourkela Steel Plant in the year of 2016, conspired with one Shri. P.K. Das (the then DGM - (Electrical), Rourkela Steel Plant), one Shri P.K. Sahoo (the then Executive Director (MM), Rourkela Steel Plant), one Shri S.K. Dua (MD, Reliable Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) and the present Petitioner (DGM - Tech, Rourkela Steel Plant, acting as Technical Advisor to Shri B.P. Verma) and others had conspired to extend undue favour to Reliable Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in matters pertaining to award of contracts, processing of tenders, release of funds/payments, etc.
3. The entire case revolves around the Rourkela Steel Plant Coke Oven Battery 6 which was commissioned in the year 2013. The mechanical and electrical job was carried out by M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation, being the EPC Contractor after commissioning, for the period of April 2013 to March 2014. Thereafter, the mechanical and electrical maintenance work was awarded to M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation on a single tender on non-proprietary basis at a price of Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs per month for the period of April 2014 to March 2015. The contract with M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation was extended twice and it finally ended in September, 2015.
4. A limited tender enquiry was then issued to six firms for execution of the mechanical and electrical maintenance work of the Rourkela Steel Plant Coke Oven Battery 6. One M/s. Reliable Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was awarded the tender on 13.10.2015 at the price of Rupees Thirty Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty per month for a period of twelve months which was due to end on 12.10.2016. The contract was further extended for four months, and finally expired on 28.02.2017.
5. On 18.04.2017, an indent was raised for execution of the mechanical and electrical maintenance work of the Rourkela Steel Plant Coke Oven Battery 6 for a period of twelve months starting 01.11.2017 to 31.10.2018. Three bidders, namely, M/s. Reliable Hi- Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Utkal Projects and M/s. SRG Earth Resources participated in the tender. As only M/s. Reliable Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was found to be technically suitable for work, the Tender Examination Committee chose to proceed for re-tendering.
6. A fresh tender was thus floated on 03.09.2016, whereby four parties participated in the said tender and M/s. Reliable Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Tata Projects and M/s. Utkal Projects were found to be technically and commercially sound. Due to certain issues arising in the course of the previous tender execution, the Technical Evaluation Committee and Commercial Evaluation Committee then sought the following clarifications from the department concerned:
' Whether the scope of work included the job of taking care of a breakdown.
-Whether adequate measures have been included in the eligibility criteria for the same.'
The same has been recorded in the Tender Committee minutes dated 14.10.2016.
7. Following this, the prosecution's case is that Mr. B.P. Verma instructed the present petitioner to return the file to the user department, i.e. Coke Oven Department for clarifications on
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
