Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 814 (JHR)

T. v. A. Narayan VS State of Jharkhand

2008-07-24

D.P.SINGH

body2008
Order Heard both sides at length. 2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.7.2007 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 15(A)/ 94R, by which the prayer for discharge preferred by petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the entire prosecution case was lodged with vendetta after retirement of the petitioner from Bokaro Steel Ltd. only because he happened to be the General Manager (Finance) and Accounts during the period 1992-93, the financial year in which some DAR pads were purchased. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has no role in the purchase of the said pads at exorbitant rate. However after retirement in 1994 he has been Implicated in this case along with other co-accused A.C. Roy, the Manager, Accounts (Administration) just to help other co-accused, the supplier firms. In this context, my attention was drawn towards FIR as well as the impugned order. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari further pointed out that the petitioner was aged about 70 years and suffering from various ailments. As such the impugned order may be set aside and petitioner's prayer for discharge be allowed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for C.B.I. opposed this contention on the ground that the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offences has been supported by materials on record. It is further submitted that he being the General Manager of the Accounts and Finance, knowingly allowed Sri A.C. Roy to place orders for DAR pads at Rs. 95.50 per pad whereas the same was available at Rs. 31.61 per pad. It is further submitted that though the store has sufficient stock but false scarcity was created by the petitioner with the help of the accused with sole purpose to cause loss to B.S.L. and gain to the suppliers. Therefore, the present petition is without merit. 7. I have gone through the materials on record at length. It appears that during the period when petitioner was the General Manager of Finance and Accounts Bokaro Steel Plant, DAR. pads, a total number of 21434, daily attendance report were procured from co-accused-supplier firm at the rate of Rs. 95.50 paise, which were earlier procured for Rs. 31.61 per pad. I have gone through the materials on record at length. It appears that during the period when petitioner was the General Manager of Finance and Accounts Bokaro Steel Plant, DAR. pads, a total number of 21434, daily attendance report were procured from co-accused-supplier firm at the rate of Rs. 95.50 paise, which were earlier procured for Rs. 31.61 per pad. It further appears that the procurement was not made through regular process, placing the requirement before Purchase Committee with non-availability of pads in the stock for inviting tenders for purchase of such bulk quantity of pads and negotiating the price through the Purchase Committee. These aspects have been considered during investigation and charge-sheet submitted by C.B.I. shows that the B.S.L. suffered a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 13,69,633/- approximately. The charge-sheet was submitted on 24.9.1997. The petition for discharge was refused on 18.7.2007. 8. After going through the materials on record, I do not find any valid ground to disagree with the view taken by the learned court below. 9. In the result, I find no merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed with direction to trial court to expedite the trial.