Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) BOTH these applications are for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner filed under Section 438, Cr. P. C. in Vigilance P. S. Case No. 18/2002 dated 8-3-2002 giving rise to Special Case No. 19/2002 and Vigilance p. S. Case No. 19/2002 being Special Case no. 20/2002 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109, 120-B, IPC read with sections 13 (2), 12 (i) (d) of the P. C. Act, 1988. Vigilance P. S. Case No. 18/2002 was registered for the purchase made from 1999 to 8-3-2000, whereas Vigilance P. S. Case No. 19/2002 was registered for the purchase made from 1995 to 2000. ( 3 ) FACTS leading to the filing of the applications are that on 8-3-2002 on the written information of DSP Vigilance, Jharkhand, ranchi, stating therein that on the orders of Additional Secretary and Director General, vigilance, he held preliminary enquiry into the allegations of illegal payments, construction work carried out and in the matter of purchase of materials and the principal, Registrar and others of Regional Institute of technology, Jamshedpur are involved. It is stated that allegations had been made that furniture worth of Rs. 80. 00 lacs has been purchased by the aforesaid persons against financial rules and on enquiry it was found that Human Resources and development Authority had allotted Rs. 76. 27 lacs to the institute in the year 1998-99 for purchase of furniture and on 1-4-99 warden A. K. Singh had written a letter to the Principal that furniture such as 150 study chairs, 150 common room chairs, 4 common room tables, 4 magazine tables, 4 class tables, 12 dining tables, 25 dining chairs, 80 wooden cots and 20 study tables were required in the newly constructed hostel No. H. S. N. Sinha, who was then Principal, invited tenders from manufacturers/ dealers and thereafter two firms M/s. Om enterprises, Jamshedpur and M/s. S. D. Sales Corporation, Jamshedpur were ordered to supply furniture to the institute and on 24-4-99 the above firms have been approved by the Purchase committee and both the firms were paid some amounts by way of advance. At the time of advance, Mr. N. K. Agrawal was the Acting Registrar of the institute and thereafter Syed Ajmat Hussain jined as Registrar on 15-6-99. At the time of advance, Mr. N. K. Agrawal was the Acting Registrar of the institute and thereafter Syed Ajmat Hussain jined as Registrar on 15-6-99. Syed Ajmat hussain after joining on the post of Registrar started creating hurdles in payment of advances to the aforesaid firms. It is alleged that he started putting hurdles for personal gain but any how he issued cheques to the firms at the instance of Principal. Thereafter petitioner R. Yadav joined as Principal of the Institute on 15-7-99 and the said Registrar Syed Ajmat Hussain and Store Keeper s, K. Bhagat came in collusion with the new principal, cancelled the supply order earlier given to the firms on the ground that the furniture supplied were substandard and were not up to the mark and petitioner thereafter placed orders for supply to the local dealers in the open market. Principal ordered for supply of 150 armless chairs, 150 stools, 140 arm chairs, all worth Rs. l;24,820. 85 paise and this amount was paid to M/s. Basant Agency, Jamshedpur and m/s. Lakshmi Furnitures and it is alleged that payment was made in connivance with dj. B. K. Prasad. sri A. K. Singh, Sri S. A. Hussain and S. K. Bhagat. It is also alleged that even after supply, there was an allotment of 75. 00 lacs, which remained available with the institute and due to this heavy amount remained available with the institute, the Principal and registrar started reckless purchase of furniture even though they were not required to purchase the same without any sanction by the Purchase Committee. It is also alleged that Purchase Committee was a pocketing Committee of the principal and Registrar and after purchases made by them the Purchase Committee used to confirm the order. On 17-2-99 a sum of rs. 49,01,841/- was paid to the Patna firm and this fact was pointed out by A. G. in audit report that except Wood and Craft Patna, all other firms supplied furnitures, which were found of substandard. The specification of wood was also found to be changed and the computer tables and chairs were distributed in every Department and except computer center, no other firms had any computer and on enquiry DSP found 143 computers in the computer centres, which were in use but few tables and chairs were kept there. The specification of wood was also found to be changed and the computer tables and chairs were distributed in every Department and except computer center, no other firms had any computer and on enquiry DSP found 143 computers in the computer centres, which were in use but few tables and chairs were kept there. So much quantity of furniture: was not required and, therefore, they were kept here and there. 1400 plastic chairs and 1000 plastic stools were also purchased, which were found kept in the store room. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent, honest and hard working person and he has been implicated in the case out of malice and the case is beyond the jurisdiction of the Vigilance department. It was pointed out that the Vigilance Department of the State of Jharkhand had no jurisdiction to register a case against the petitioner on the basis of direction of the Minister of science and Technology, Government of jharkhand because RIT, Jamshedpur is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and this is an autonomous body. This is a body not created by any State Government nor is the creation of central Government and the institute is guided by its own memorandum by association and rule framed thereunder. Further functioning of RJT is manned by Board of governors as stated in Rule-C. The Budget of the institute is passed by Parliament and expenditure is made by Union Government and cannot be treated as an undertaking of the State Government merely because nominees of the State government are members of the Board of Governors of the Institute apart from other nominees of Central Government Department and as such provisions of Sections 47, 60, 65, 66, 75, 76 of the reorganization Act are not applicable. It was also pointed out that even Section 70 of the reorganization Act does not allow the State government of Jharkhand to derive any advantage of this section. It was also pointed out that other acts, such as appointment of chairman etc. cannot be made by State government. It was also pointed out that even Section 70 of the reorganization Act does not allow the State government of Jharkhand to derive any advantage of this section. It was also pointed out that other acts, such as appointment of chairman etc. cannot be made by State government. Learned counsel further pointed out that petitioner has fallen a victim of the wrath of sri Samresh Singh, who was Minister of Science and Technology and he wanted his men to be inducted on the post of Principal as well as on the post of registrar and that is why he hatched up a conspiracy to implicate the Principal as well as Registrar and others so that his men may be brought on those posts and, therefore, ignoring all the norms, such as jurisdiction of Jharkhand State, jurisdiction of jharkhand Vigilance and further by-passing the provisions of rule under which RIT is governed, he got an order passed by the chief Minister for an enquiry by the Vigilance and pressurized the vigilance officials to conduct a preliminary enquiry and on the basis of preliminary enquiry the Vigilance sleuths has no authority or jurisdiction to maintain such written complaint but under pressure from the Minister, Science and technology, a vigilance case was registered and after preliminary enquiry FIR was drawn up. It was also pointed out that Vigilance department did not conduct investigation properly and submitted charge-sheet without proper investigation. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel further pointed out that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner had invited tenders for purchase of articles as stated above and he had made a number of mistakes in the purchase of articles and even though articles, which were not required at all, were also [purchased and the firms to which orders for supply of the materials were placed, were not in existence and they did not have any bihar Sales Tax number etc. and, therefore, at the time of payment of money the Accounts Department raised an objection and, therefore, payment could not be made, although cheque was prepared and in the meantime petitioner joined as Principal and one Ajmat Hussain joined as Registrar and orders placed earlier to the firms were cancelled, as these firms were not in existence and it has come to the knowledge of the authority and thereafter purchases were made in accordance with rule and for that a purchase Committee was constituted and after proper approval of the Purchase Committee orders were placed for supply of materials. It was also pointed out that article which was ordered earlier @ Rs. 345/- was purchased at below rate of that price and in this way the petitioner saved a huge amount of the institute and purchased required materials but being aggrieved by the proper manner of purchase by the petitioner the minister, Science and Technology pressurized the persons for instituting a case against him although the persons, who were aware of the provisions did not like this case to be instituted against the petitioner and others but :by suppressing material facts the science and Technology Minister got order passed from the Chief Minister. ( 6 ) IT was further pointed out that from the FIR, it appears that even the papers, which were in favour of the petitioner were suppressed from the knowledge of the Investigating Officer and others which could have justified the proper manner of purchase of articles and, therefore, a wrong view was taken by the Investigating Officer in collusion with the persons, who were against the petitioner and by that suppression action has been taken against the petitioner. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the Vigilance, submitted that along with the FIR, photo copies of all the relevant papers which according to learned counsel for the petitioner have been suppressed are annexed and all those materials are there in the case diary and there is no suppression of material of fact claimed to be in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that a huge amount was allotted to the RIT, Jamshedpur and purchases were made by the predecessor of the petitioner but before payment was made this petitioner joined as Principal and he manoeuvred these things with the Registrar and other persons and got payment of money delayed and ultimately cancelled the purchase order, as this petitioner had greedy eyes on the huge amount of money allotted for purchase of furnitures, computers etc. and thereby he himself insisted a proposal for purchase of furnitures even not required for the Department. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel also pointed out that the Purchase Committee, which was a pocket organization of the petitioner and that his men-were included in the committee so constituted, gave its approval only after purchases had been made and thus the purchases were not made properly and contrary to the financial rules and thereby they committed offences punishable under the sections, under which cases have been registered. ( 9 ) THE points of jurisdiction etc. , which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be decided in the anticipatory bail petitions and the petitioner should have raised this point by filing quashing application or like that. It is true that petitioner has tried to make out a case of false implication at the instance of the Minister of science and Technology and has questioned the jurisdiction of the Vigilance Department in entertaining the application and instituting a case, taking action against the petitioner and others but question is, this point of jurisdiction should have been raised through appropriate application before the appropriate Court. However, from the materials on record, it appears that petitioner after Joining as Principal did all those things so that crders placed earlier by his predecessor for supply of materials, computers etc. However, from the materials on record, it appears that petitioner after Joining as Principal did all those things so that crders placed earlier by his predecessor for supply of materials, computers etc. could be cancelled and in that way he with the active connivance of his men, got the orders for supply of materials were cancelled and thereby defamed the predecessor and he initiated steps for purchase of some materials on his terms and conditions and for that he cleverly got rates of some of the articles at lower price than the earlier price and made purchases of articles, which were a below standard and in this connection the vigilance made preliminary inquiry and came to a finding about the illegal purchases of articles of furnitures and computers and even those articles were not required for the purpose of the institute and thereby they put the institute to a loss of huge amount of money and this will be also clear from the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Vigilance. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, this is not a erase for grant of anticipates bail and accordingly both the applications are rejected. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .