Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2264 (ALL)

Vijay Randhar v. State of U. P.

2014-07-31

A.P.SAHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.: - 1. The applicant who is stated to be the Director of M/s. Sudarshan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Indore has been made an accused in the National Rural Health Mission Scheme for having connived in the supply of highly over rated medicines and the invoices and payments made in respect thereof indicate the complicity of the applicant. The applicant was charge-sheeted and a non-bailable warrant was issued by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad in Case No. 2 of 2013, CBI v. P.P. Verma and others. The applicant is being prosecuted for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, hence the present application for quashing of the charge-sheet and the summoning the order as well. 2. Sri Anoop Trivedi at length has submitted that the applicant had absolutely no concern with any transaction with the real Firm which had supplied the medicines and the applicant had got nothing to do with the transaction of M/s. Dafodills Pharmaceuticals, Meerut with the government agencies. 3. The applicant is in business with M/s. Dafodills for long and is an established medical manufacturer firm. The applicant's firm did supply medicines but was nowhere awarded any contract or tender nor has the applicant received any payments from the Government for supply of such medicines so as to involve the applicant for having enhanced the rates. 4. The exorbitant rates may have been the quotations of M/s. Dafodills or any other firms that are stated to be involved but so far as the applicant firm is concerned there is neither any over invoicing or over rating nor it has entered into any such transaction for supply under the NRHM Scheme. 5. The contention therefore is that the charge-sheet absolutely proceeds on a material which does not make out any case at all and in the absence of any connecting evidence to the entire transaction of the alleged scam the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. 6. There are two facts which are required to be indicated at the very outset, namely that the applicant had challenged the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge in a Criminal Revision No. 1326 of 2013 which was converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 16131 of 2013. 6. There are two facts which are required to be indicated at the very outset, namely that the applicant had challenged the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge in a Criminal Revision No. 1326 of 2013 which was converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 16131 of 2013. The challenge was raised to the non-bailable warrant that had been issued on the ground that the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was pending before the High Court. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said application invoking Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and held that the proceedings cannot be stayed. The said section 482 Application No. 16131 of 2013 was dismissed as not pressed on 16.5.2013. 7. The second fact which deserves notice is that the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 2839 of 2013 against the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Ghaziabad whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section317 Cr.P.C. for recalling non-bailable warrants and for exemption of personal appearance had been rejected. The said criminal revision was heard and the prayer for quashing the said order was refused with a further observation that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days and applies for bail the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. The applicant was given a protection for no coercive action being taken for a period of 45 days. The said order dated 29th January, 2014 passed in the aforesaid revision has been placed before the court. 8. It is thereafter, even though this application had been filed earlier and remained pending, has now come up for hearing. The applicant has also filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit again reiterating the stand contending that the alleged bills that was raised by the M/s. Dafodills Pharmaceuticals indicates no complicity of the applicant, whereby the rates of tablets supplied was increased to 26 paisa per tablet whereas the supply rate by the applicant was 5 paisa per tablet. 9. Sri. Trivedi submits that this increase in the amount and its realisation through a contract was entirely between M/s. Dafodills Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Meerut and other firms, but had nothing to do with the firm of the applicant. 9. Sri. Trivedi submits that this increase in the amount and its realisation through a contract was entirely between M/s. Dafodills Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Meerut and other firms, but had nothing to do with the firm of the applicant. It has again been stated that no payments were received and in such circumstances no case is made out for prosecuting the applicant. 10. Replying to the said submissions Sri Anurag Khanna has invited the attention of the court to the counter-affidavit filed as well as to the charge-sheet and the material that has been disclosed during investigation to urge that the applicant's complicity is clearly indicated as the applicant's firm has received payments. He further submits that three tenders were received including one from the applicant firm as well. One of the tenders of M/s. Unicure Pharmaceuticals was forged. It has further been stated that two drafts each amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for submitting the tender were prepared on the asking of M/s. Dafodills Pharmaceuticals in favour of the Chief Medical Officer through the ICICI Bank on the written instructions of the Director Sri Surendra Chaudhari. These drafts were for the tenders of M/s. Unicure which was found to be forged and the second draft was in support of the tender of M/s. Sudarshan Pharmaceuticals of which the applicant is the Director. The allegation therefore is that right from the beginning the applicant's firm was hand-in-gloves with M/s. Dafodills for obtaining the supply. 11. Apart from this, it is also indicated in the charge-sheet that Mr. Surendra Chaudhari Director of M/s. Dafodills informed the applicant that the tablets will be purchased by the CMO Family Welfare Meerut from his firm, and on this promise the applicant applied for licence for manufacturing of the tablets in 2011. It is further indicated that six demand drafts issued by the Chief Medical Officer that have been referred to in the charge-sheet were received by the applicant's firm after sanction by the Chief Medical Officer. Further the raising of challenge to the bills of M/s. Dafodills for supply of tablets on a higher rate of 26 paise per tablet appears to have been received by M/s. Sudarshan Pharmaceuticals and therefore this conspiracy clearly indicates the involvement of the applicant. 12. Further the raising of challenge to the bills of M/s. Dafodills for supply of tablets on a higher rate of 26 paise per tablet appears to have been received by M/s. Sudarshan Pharmaceuticals and therefore this conspiracy clearly indicates the involvement of the applicant. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the charge-sheet as well as the aforesaid allegations and the fact that the applicant's firm has participated in the tender proceedings, therefore does not in any way exonerate the applicant of his alleged criminal liability which is yet to be assessed on the strength of the evidence in trial. This transaction according to the respondents has resulted in a huge loss and the applicant being involved in this conspiracy of cheating as alleged does not make out any case for quashing of the charge-sheet or of the summoning order. In respect of other accused the prayer for quashing of charge-sheet has been refused by a learned Single Judge in a detailed judgment reported in 2013 (4) ADJ 620 , Devendra Mohan v. CBI/EOU-IV/New Delhi that had been assailed before the Apex Court but the SLP's were dismissed as withdrawn. The application is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.