The Court emphasized the need to balance the fundamental rights of the accused with the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence, and held that further investigation was not warranted in the absence of sufficient material on record.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Palo, J.

1. Regard being had similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously and a common order is being passed.

2. The applicant accused Govind Swaroop Shrivastava has filed M.Cr.C No. 2994/2014 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 20th March, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 3/2010 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C has been disallowed.

3. Similarly, M.Cr.C No. 3182/2014 has been filed by the accused/applicant Chandramauli Mishra under Section 482 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 20th March, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for “further investigation” in Crime No. 29/2009 has been rejected.

4. Heard the counsel for the applicants and respondents.

5. The facts just necessary for adjudicating the matters are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the applicants and also to find out whether the applicants are entitled for the relief as prayed by them.

6. The applicants Govind Swaroop Shrivastava and Chandramauli Mishra are the accused persons in Special Sessions Trial No. 03/2010. They have filed separate applications under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C and submitted that in Harsi High Level Canal the revised estimate of Rs. 607.76 Crores was granted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The estimate was prepared by the applicants, it was also approved by the high level technical advisors of Government of India. Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam is an ancillary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The administrative control of which is vested with the Department of Commerce and Industries. The Managing Director of this Laghu Udyog Nigam is an IAS Officer. The allegations against the applicants are not true. In the police report, this fact has not been mentioned that the administrative sanction was granted as per the revised estimate. The main accusation was regarding purchase of ''Acquaduct'' as revised estimate was administratively approved and further additional budget was sanctioned. But in this regard, nothing has come on record, therefore, it is felt necessary for “further investigation”. The applicant, Govind Swaroop Shrivastava and Chandramauli Mishra have prayed before the learned Trial Court to order ''further investigation'' under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

7. The learned Trial Court observed that the Engineer-in-Chief, Chief Engineer and Superintendent Engineer have been involved in this case according to the police report. In this project, provision of RCC Aquaduct was made. However, arbitrarily in place of RCC Aquaduct, purchase of steel pipe Aquaduct has been included. Besides, without inviting tender M.S. Railing and M.S. Foot Bridge were purchased overlooking the provisions of the Government purchase rules.

8. The Government fund was misused. The Technical sanction for the revised estimate was granted for the purchase of unwanted goods from the un-authorized firm through M.P. State Consumer Cooperative Society at higher rate and illegally paid the amount from the Government fund, which is criminal breach of trust and violation of Madhya Pradesh Store Purchase Rules.

9. The learned Trial Court also observed that by criminal conspiracy, the accused persons by-passing the rules purchased the goods at high rate of 4 times to 14 times more than the market value, caused wrongful loss to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The accused persons committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the government funds. Charge sheet has been filed against 18 accused persons. Still investigation is pending against about 100 other persons.

10. The learned Trial Court held that the criminal acts of the petitioners have been made clear in the police report. They have purchased the goods at high rate