Criminal conspiracy charges can proceed independently, even if substantive offences are not proven, highlighting the distinct nature of conspiracy under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in connection with CTR Case No.37 of 2007 arising out of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 of 2004.

3. The background facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director of M/s. Orient Constructions Private Limited, Sambalpur, and Petitioner No.2 is the Power of Attorney holder of the said company. M/s. Orient Constructions Private Limited, Sambalpur, was entrusted with the construction of the Karamdihi-Subdega-Talsera- Balisankara and Luhakera Road, extending over 37 kilometres. The Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Sundargarh, along with the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer of Rajgangpur Sub-Division and Subdega Section, were responsible for supervising the said construction work as the departmental technical officers. During the course of the construction, allegations arose regarding the execution of work being substandard in nature, whereupon an enquiry was initiated. In the course of inspection by the technical wing of the Vigilance Department, conducted in the presence of the Petitioners and other concerned officials, it was detected that, despite the substandard work executed by the contractor, an excess payment of Rs.11,34,990/- had been made to the contractor. It was further revealed during the inspection that the co-accused, namely, Albert Ekka, the then Executive Engineer, along with the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, by abusing their official positions, showed undue official favour to the contractor, M/s. Orient Constructions Private Limited, represented through the Petitioners, and permitted the execution of substandard work, thereby causing loss to the Government to the extent mentioned above.

It is further alleged that the said Executive Engineer and two other officials entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Petitioners and allowed execution of the substandard work, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , besides offences under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, upon registration of the FIR, the matter was taken up for investigation, and upon completion of the same, a prima facie case having been made out against the Petitioners along with the Government officials, charge-sheet was submitted against them under (2) read with (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

4. After cognizance was taken of the offences, the Petitioners filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking their discharge from the case by resorting to the provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5. The learned trial court having considered the application of the Petitioners found the offences under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420 of IPC not made out but found sufficient material to frame the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC directing the Petitioners to stand the trial and accordingly, the Petitioners faced the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners assailing the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, inter alia, submitted that the construction work in respect to 37 Kms. road connecting Karamdihi-Subedega- Talsara-Balisankara Luhakera was undertaken in the year 2002 and 2003 with an estimated cost of Rs.9,22,22,907/-. The tender was called for and the Petitioners firm was the lowest bidder to undertake the contract at t