IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
R.C. Mishra,Vimla Jain
Rajesh Rajora (Dr.)
Vs.
State of M.P. & anr.
M.Cr.C. No. 8695/2009
Decided On: 08.03.2011
Prevention of Corruption Act - Procurement of Anti-TB Drugs - Section 13 (1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 13 (1)(d) and S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which define the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant. The court highlighted the duty of public servants and the prohibition on obtaining valuable things or pecuniary advantages by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the procurement of anti-TB drugs by the Health Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The investigation was initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for alleged offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. The petitioners contended that the investigation was an abuse of the court process due to non-compliance with statutory procedures and lack of opportunity for hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation did not warrant interference and dismissed the petitions. It held that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, constituted the offence under the Act. The court emphasized that the defenses raised by the petitioners required factual inquiry and could not be considered at the preliminary stage for quashing the FIR and the proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved non-compliance with statutory procedures, abuse of court process, and the sufficiency of evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation did not warrant interference and that the defenses raised by the petitioners required factual inquiry and could not be considered at the preliminary stage for quashing the FIR and the proceedings.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the FIR disclosing the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Act did not deserve to be quashed. The investigation in question did not call for any interference. The court clarified that the dismissal of the petitions did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and allowed the petitioners to raise all available pleas if a charge-sheet was filed.
R. C. Mishra, J.
1. This common order shall govern disposal of all the three petitions moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing of the FIR leading to registration of a case as Crime No. 7/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') at Bhopal office of SPE (Lokayukt) and the corresponding proceedings.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners shall be referred to by their respective names.
3. Backgrounds facts may be summed up thus -
(a) New Drug Policy, brought into force by the Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt, of M.P. (for short 'PHFWD') w.e.f. 06.06.2006 was required to be followed by the Directorate of Health Services (hereinafter referred to as the 'Directorate') for procurement of drugs to be distributed to various hospitals/public health centers during the year 2007-08. Accordingly, the drugs were to be purchased in a centralized manner and the PHFWD was to be the Nodal Department.
(b) On 20.4.2007, Dr. Ashok Sharma, who was working as Director of Health Services, issued orders to Managing Director, MPLUN (Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam) for supply of medicines and injectables for a total amount of Rs. 16.65 crores (approx), as per requirements mentioned in the indents received from three different departments viz. Department of Medical Education (for brevity 'DME'), Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department (for brevity 'GTRRD') and the PHFWD. These medicines included Antituberculosis Drug namely injection streptomycin (.75 gm), Rifampicin, Isoniazid, Pyrazinamide and Ethambutol, worth Rs. 31, 99, 949/-.
(c) On 4.8.2007, the Joint Director (Tuberculosis) invited attention of the Director, Public Health to the purchase of anti-TB drugs in conflict with the policy laid down by the Central Government in its Revamped National Tuberculosis Control Program (RNTCP). The Director placed the matter before Dr. Rajesh Rojora, the then Health Commissioner, who, in turn, cancelled the supply orders relating to Anti-TB drugs. However, in response to the corresponding letter dated 8.8.2007, the Managing Director, MPLUN reported that all these medicines had already been supplied to various district hospitals in the State.
(d) The purchase of anti-tuberculosis medicines was seriously viewed by the Central Government. Ultimately, on 08.08.2007, Naresh Dayal, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt, of India, wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Govt, of Madhya Pradesh, expressing deep concern about purchasing of anti-tuberculosis drug in violation of the undertaking given by the Secretary, Govt, of M.P. on 05.12.2005. The relevant extracts of the letter read thus -
Recently, it has been brought to our notice that the State of MP has purchased anti-TB drugs, which are being supplied to the districts. These drugs are for daily use and thus not as per DOTS strategy. They would allow for prescription by doctors and patients cannot be followed up. Thus, it would lead to Multi-drug resistant TB (MDR TB), which the entire DOTS strategy seeks to prevent. It is, therefore, necessary that these drugs are withdrawn from the districts and an enquiry be made to fix the responsibility for this purchase.
During the field visit by the member of Central TB Division in the month of March, 28th and 29th, 2007 it was observed that there were problems with the management of drugs and logistics at the state & district level. One of the observations was that the state was purchasing inj. Streptomycin (1 gm) supplying it to the districts, when it was already being supplied under the programme. It may also be added that the programme recommends the usage of 0.75 gm of inj. Streptomycin. Feedback on the same was sent by the Central TB division to the State TB Officer through the letter No. T-1801967/ 2005 TB dated 5th April, 2007 with a copy to Director
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.