Judgment :- S.K. CHAKRABARTI, J. 1. In the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the propriety of prosecution in Special Case No. 05 of 2011 arising out of SPE/CBI/Port Blair R.C. 121 of 2011 A 0002 dated 28.07.2011 under Section 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now pending before the court of learned Special Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair has been assailed. 2. The petitioner contends that on 01.02.2011 he was posted as Executive Engineer in North Andaman Construction Division, Andaman Public Works Department at Mayabunder. On that date a tender was floated by the Administration for construction of 20 nos. of Type-III quarters (D/S) at Sub Division-I, Mayabunder under T.O. No. Tender-DB/NACD/MB/2010-11/126 dated 20.01.2011. The tender was opened there on 25.02.2011 by the Assistant Engineer while the petitioner was on leave. It was found that the offer of one Shri C.M.Roy amounting to Rs. 2,40,75,380/- was the lowest bidder. On 07.03.2011 all the eight(8) original tenders received including the lowest bidder with comparative statement, proforma accompanying the tender, Photostat copy of the newspaper cutting, tender issue and opening register, basic rate of men, materials and machineries etc. were forwarded to the Superintending Engineer(Plg), CE’s Office, APWD, Port Blair in his letter No. TN- 1/GPA/DB/MACD/MB/2010-11/467. The said offer was accepted on 30.03.2011 by the competent authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer (Plg) subject to certain conditions. On 06.04.2011 the lowest bidder Shri C.M.Roy was duly informed regarding acceptance of his offer and was requested to submit performance guarantee of Rs.12,03,769/- within 15 days of the issuance of the order. On 29.04.2011 Shri C.M.Roy was asked to attend the office of the petitioner within 10 days to complete the formal agreement and was asked to contact the Assistant Engineer-I, Mayabunder and Assistant Engineer-IV(E&M), Mayabunder under NACD, Mayabunder for taking possession of the site and starting the work. 3. On 28.07.2011, the opposite party, Central Bureau of Investigation, received the source information that during 2010-2011 the petitioner while functioning as Executive Engineer, NACD, APWD, Mayabunder misused/abused his official position as a government servant and entered into a criminal conspiracy with said C.M. Roy, a government contractor whereby the petitioner awarded the aforesaid assignment for construction of 20 Type-III quarters to said C.M.Roy at Rs. 2,40,72,212/-. 2,40,72,212/-. While awarding such work order he had altered the amount mentioned against certain items by forgery thereby enhancing the tender value by Rs. 32,68,168/- i.e. total Rs 2,73,40,378/- from Rs. 2,40,72,212/- and thereby caused wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 32,68,168/-. 4. On the basis of such information, the opposite party registered the aforesaid case on 28.07.2011 and on the basis of such false prosecution he was placed under suspension on 05.08.2011. 5. The petitioner further contends that as per manual the scrutiny and preparation of the comparative chart made by the Divisional Accountant required approval of the Superintending Engineer who is the competent authority. The acceptance of the tender on the basis of the communication made by the petitioner does not disclose prima-facie commission of any offence of forgery, wrongful loss or wrongful gain as alleged in the FIR because the work has not yet been completed and no payment has been made and that actual amount of lowest bidder was communicated by him to the accepting authority. In fact there has been no actual wrongful loss or wrongful gain on account of so called forgery. He had forwarded all the relevant papers to the accepting authority i.e. Superintending Engineer who did not raise any suspicion and detected any act of interpolation or over writing to the prejudice to the Administration. Therefore, further continuation of such proceedings will be abuse of the process of the court which should be prevented and as such he has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings. 6. Learned lawyer for the opposite party has opposed the move and contended that on the result of investigation made so far it will appear that the accused has tempered various documents with the intention to deceive the Administration by fraudulent means and false documents. At this stage investigation should be allowed to continue to reveal the truth and the intention of such correction or alteration alleged to have been made is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by the revisional court. Therefore, there is no merit in this application which should be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for both the parties and perused the Case Diary and other connected documents. Substance of allegations made in the FIR will appear from the following statement of fact. Therefore, there is no merit in this application which should be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for both the parties and perused the Case Diary and other connected documents. Substance of allegations made in the FIR will appear from the following statement of fact. “Shri Gurupada Mandal, A1, after resuming charge, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri C.M.Roy, A2, the object which was to allot the tender to the latter but at an enhanced value than what was quoted by A2. In pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy entered between Shri Gurupada Mandal, A1 and Shri C.M.Roy, A2, and also with unknown persons/officials, the cost of figures given by Shri C.M.Roy, A2 in his tender against certain items were conveniently altered, overwritten and the figures were prefixed and suffixed to the existing figures such that the tender value of Shri C.M.Roy, A2 still remained L1 i.e. Rs. 2,73,40,380/-. During the process of making the alteration and forgery, the enhanced amount was found to Rs. 45,05,000/-. But, by adding this figure of Rs. 45,05,000/- to the existing figure of Rs. 2,40,72,212/- of Shri C.M.Roy, A2, he would then become L2 and not L1. Therefore, in order to ensure that Shri C.M.Roy, A2 continues to be L1 despite the alterations, the accused persons altered directly the total amount of Rs. 2.40,72,212/- to Rs. 2.73,40,380/-, which enhanced the amount to Rs. 32,68,168/- than the actually quoted rate in the tender. This amount is the false claim made by the accused. Thus, A1 Shri Gurupada Mandal, A2 Shri C.M.Roy and other unknown persons/officials of NACD, APWD, Mayabunder had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 32,68,168/-towards awarding the above said work order.” 8. Thus, it is claimed by the prosecution that in the FIR the allegations of forgery and wrongful loss or wrongful gain have been made against the petitioner, Shri C.M.Roy and other unknown persons and officials of NACD, APWD, Mayabunder. 9. From the result of the investigation so far made and recorded in the Case Diary, it appears that no prima-facie material is forthcoming against the petitioner, Executive Engineer who is not the acceptance authority of the tender documents in official capacity he has forwarded all relevant documents to the Superintending Engineer for his consideration and acceptance. 9. From the result of the investigation so far made and recorded in the Case Diary, it appears that no prima-facie material is forthcoming against the petitioner, Executive Engineer who is not the acceptance authority of the tender documents in official capacity he has forwarded all relevant documents to the Superintending Engineer for his consideration and acceptance. Therefore, it appears that correction made without signature but revealed in course of investigation that some other staff has made the correction which has no material effect the process of acceptance of the lowest amount tendered by C.M.Roy at Rs. 2,40,72,212/- which will be reflected from the work order issued. The purpose and intention of such correction is yet to be ascertained by the I.O. but merely for forwarding the documents to the acceptance authority by the present petitioner with the actual and original lowest amount no evil intention is prima-facie forthcoming because in his forwarding letter the present petitioner has mentioned that the lowest bidder has offered an amount of Rs. 2,40,72,212/-only. Such interpolation of office record has taken place after dispatch of all tender documents to the accepting authority. Unfortunately, before making any allegation in the FIR against the petitioner, no opportunity was given to him to clarify regarding the correction and tampering of documents as alleged. As a responsible officer of the employer, it is his legitimate expectation that he should be given reasonable opportunity before taking any penal action against him. In the instant case no such opportunity was given denying fundamental principles of natural justice. 10. Learned lawyer for the opposite party has contended that the petitioner would get sufficient opportunity at a later stage of investigation if he is imputed as a result of such investigation. But this cannot the objective of criminal prosecution whereby a person will imputed first and thereafter the investigation agency will indulge in quest of collecting incriminating materials against him at the cost of his mental suffering and social ignominy. Under no stretch of imagination such action of his employer can be held to be justified. Therefore, at present, prosecution of the petitioner in my opinion will be merely abuse of the process of law and as such to prevent such miscarriage of justice, it is a fit case where the court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Therefore, at present, prosecution of the petitioner in my opinion will be merely abuse of the process of law and as such to prevent such miscarriage of justice, it is a fit case where the court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In order to bring charges of cheating contemplated under Section 420 IPC. There should be dishonest inducement in the matter of any valuable recuritulent in this case petitioner has not induced his employer to accept lowest bid of Rs. 2,40,75,380/-at a higher amount of Rs. 2,73,40,378/-. Similarly forgery of a document purports to be a valuable scrutiny, or a will, or an authority etc contemplated under Section 467 IPC does not appear in the FIR to have been made before acceptance of the lowest bid. Forgery for the purpose of cheating intending that the document shall be used for the purpose of cheating as contemplated under Section 468 IPC also is conspicuously absent against him in the FIR. Using as genuine such false documents fraudulently or dishonestly as contemplated under Section 471 IPC is also leaving against him before acceptance of such lowest bid. An offence of criminal conspiracy as contemplated under Section 120 B IPC is also not forthcoming against him because there must be some mens reato commit the offence but in the entire dealings of the matter the role of the present petitioner was that of a despatcher and he had no opportunity to exercise his discretionary power to accept or reject the lowest bid. An admitted position in the case is that no payment has yet been made and the lowest offer has been accepted by the Superintending Engineer who is the competent authority in this case and work order has been issued by him as per rate mentioned by the lowest bidder and accepted by the Superintending Engineer. Therefore, such action on the part of the petitioner as made out in the FIR does not disclose offences under sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC as made out in the FIR. 12. Accordingly, I hold that there are sufficient merits in this application which is accordingly allowed. The instant proceeding against the present petitioner is hereby quashed and he is discharged but the same shall, however, proceed against rest. 13. 12. Accordingly, I hold that there are sufficient merits in this application which is accordingly allowed. The instant proceeding against the present petitioner is hereby quashed and he is discharged but the same shall, however, proceed against rest. 13. This order, however, shall not prevent the employer of the petitioner from making administrative inquiry and from taking appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner in connection with his lapses in forwarding the tender papers in question or at a subsequent stage to his higher authority, if any. 14. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on usual undertakings.