Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 304 (JHR)

Sri. Prodyut Mukherjee v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-29

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. 2. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 420/467/ 468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with RC 11(A)/2009-AHD-R. 3. The case relates to Medicine Scam in the State of Jharkhand in which medicines, medical equipments and sundry items worth Rs. 1,30,50,79,951.74 were purchased without assessing the actual requirement and without observing the codal formalities prescribed in this regard. 4. So far as this petitioner is concerned, petitioner was functioning, after deputation from the Office of the Accountant General, as State Finance Manager of the State Health Society from 17.7.2008 to August 2009. As State Finance Manager, he was also one of the signatories of the cheques issued for the payments made by the Society, as also to the expenditure report which was sent to the Government of India. So far as the charges against the petitioner is concerned they are as follows in the charge-sheet:- (i) It was he, who, being one of the members of the criminal conspiracy, toed the line of coconspirators and agreed to award contract to M/s. Nand Kishore Fogla. (ii) He was one of the signatories of the expenditure report forwarded to the Government of India wherein incorrect figures of expenditure were intentionally shown. (iii) He received payoff amounting to Rs. 34 lacs from Rajesh Kumar Fogla in lieu of the illegitimate favour extended to him in the process of award of contract. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. So far the main charge against the petitioner of receiving Rs. 34 lakhs from one Rajesh Kumar Fogla is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statement of the said Rajesh Kumar Fogla was recorded under Section 164, Cr PC twice. In the first statement which was recorded on 5.10.2009, the said Rajesh Kumar Fogla had not made any allegation against the petitioner. However, in his second statement recorded under Section 164, Cr PC on 17.6.2010. Rajesh Kumar Fogla has stated that Rs. 34 lakhs was paid to the petitioner being 1% of the total amount payable to the firm for supply of the medicines and sundry items, which cannot be relied upon. However, in his second statement recorded under Section 164, Cr PC on 17.6.2010. Rajesh Kumar Fogla has stated that Rs. 34 lakhs was paid to the petitioner being 1% of the total amount payable to the firm for supply of the medicines and sundry items, which cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the expenditure report forwarded to the Government of India with incorrect figures was concerned, the same was also signed by the Secretary of the Department and as such the petitioner had no occasion to disbelieve the same. Learned counsel has also pointed out that one co-accused Shyamal Chakraborty has been granted bail. With these submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for bail of the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that upon investigation, the omissions and commissions attributable to the petitioner, as detailed in the counter-affidavit, are as follows:- (1) He was one of the constituents of the tender committee which decided to place order for the supply of medical equipments and various sundry items. (ii) It was he, who being one of the members of the criminal conspiracy toed the line of co-conspirator and agreed to award the contract to the accused firms. (iii) He was one of the signatories of the expenditure report forwarded to Government of India wherein incorrect figures of expenditure were intentionally shown. (iv) He allowed the accused firms to change their price bids and to offer exorbitant rates. (v) He declared qualified/disqualified in the technical/price bids as per his convenience. (vi) He recommended the award of work to L-2 and others without any justification. (vii) He recommended exorbitant rates offered by the accused terms. (viii) He received a commission of Rs. 34,00,000/- from accused Rajesh Kumar Fogla, a defector proprietor of M/s. Nand Kishore Fogla and Rs. 5,18,800/- from Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Annu Enterprtses and M/s. Kalyan Enterprises. 7. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have received illegal gratification of Rs. 34,00,000/- from Rajesh Kumar Fogla and Rs. 5,18,800/- from Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh. 5,18,800/- from Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Annu Enterprtses and M/s. Kalyan Enterprises. 7. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have received illegal gratification of Rs. 34,00,000/- from Rajesh Kumar Fogla and Rs. 5,18,800/- from Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that during investigation, it has been revealed that without assessing the actual needs of the State, purchase orders were placed to the concerned terms at highly inflated rates. The Government of India was given the expenditure report in which the petitioner is also one of the signatories, and in the said report, the expenditure shown were much less than the actual expenditure made in the purchases, only in order to show the figure within budgetary limit. Learned Standing Counsel accordingly opposed the prayer for bail. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides. I find that there are very serious charges against the petitioner in making purchases of medicine, medical equipments and sundry items at highly inflated rates for which there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have received illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 34 lakhs from one supplier and Rs. 5,18,800/- from another supplier. Though, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was merely one of the signatories of the cheques and the expenditure report, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the petitioner was deputed from the office of the Accountant General, and he was expected to protect the financial irregularities, rather to become a party to it. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner Sri. Prodyut Mukherjee on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected. Bail rejected.