Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 681 (MP)

Satish Kumar v. State of M. P.

2004-08-19

S.L.KOCHAR

body2004
JUDGMENT The applicants have filed this application for grant of protective order in connection with Crime No. 314/2004 registered at P.S. Jivajiganj, Distt. Indore for the offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 408, 409 and 120-B of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the contract was to construct cement concrete road in Ward No.2, Mahavir Nagar, Ujjain. Contract was given to the contractor Prasmma Chandra Jain but no road was constructed and the applicants have issued verification and completion report on the basis of which the contractor Prasmma Chandra Jain has withdrawn rupees one lac for one road and Rs. 66,200/- for another road. The case has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one of the Councellor of Nagar Nigam. The anticipatory bail application of contractor Prasmma Chandra Jain has already been dismissed by this Court. It is really a very serious matter that for public work, contract was given and no work was performed, even then, the applicants being the Engineer and Overseer, given false and fictitious inspection and completion report in favour of the contractor. This has happened in a town like Ujjain. Therefore, ought we know what will be happening in the villages of remote area. For construction of this road, the amount was sanctioned by the concerned MLA Shri Rajendra Bharati. According to rules, the Collector is also required to inspect the work done by the contractor from Vidhayak Nidhi and obviously the MLA is also at least morally responsible to look after the work when he has sanctioned the money for construction of the said roads. Money was sanctioned by the MLA No roads were constructed and payment was also made to the concerned contractor Prasanna Chandra Jain on the basis of the inspection and completion report by the applicants. In fact the matter was highlighted by one Sonu Gehlot, Councellor of N agar Nigam, Ujjain who filed a complaint case before the learned JMFC, Ujjain and the learned Magistrate passed the order for police investigation. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail. The offence has been registered long back against the applicants. The bail application of co-accused contractor has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.8.2004. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail. The offence has been registered long back against the applicants. The bail application of co-accused contractor has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.8.2004. Even thereafter, both the applicants have not been arrested by the police, that shows that the police is giving them latitude to apply for anticipatory bail. Otherwise, there is no reason why both the applicants have not been arrested when they are attending their office and they are shown to be on duty. It is expected from the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain to take care of this matter seriously and if the applicants are not available, the police can proceed as per provision U/Ss. 82 and 83 of the CrPC. This application is dismissed. The Advocate General Office as well as the Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. as well as the Directory General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Ujjain for necessary action under intimation to this Court.