Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 20 (RAJ)

Mahesh Chand Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-05

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.199/2014 registered at Police Station ACB Jaipur for the offence under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and for offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC to his extent. 2. As per factual report dated 30.11.2015 prepared by the investigating agency, the allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is that they entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, co-accused-Shri Rajendra Mohan Sharma without following the procedure of purchase as prescribed under the provisions of GF & AR and without inviting tenders from the open market took steps to purchase drawing copies of 40 pages of 80 gsm size 10" X 7.5" from the petitioner but petitioner supplied copies of 58 gsm instead of 80 gsm. 3. Inviting attention of the Court towards material made available on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although initially tenders were invited for the supply of drawing copies of 80 gsm but by mistake petitioner as Proprietor of M/s Ajanta Book Store submitted his tender for the supply of drawing copies of 58 gsm and quoted rate for the copies of 58 gsm and the rate quoted by the petitioner was approved by the tender approval committee for the supply of copies of 58 gsm and not for the supply of copies of 80 gsm. It was further submitted that in various orders which were issued by the co-accused from time to time for the actual supply of the copies also, it was specifically mentioned that drawing copies of 58 gsm are to be supplied at the rate quoted by the petitioner in his tender and, therefore, copies of the same specification were supplied by the petitioner which were accepted by the department concerned without any objection. It was also submitted that in the bills also submitted by the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that drawing copies of 58 gsm have been supplied and the payment at the quoted rate was claimed by the petitioner. It was also submitted that in the bills also submitted by the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that drawing copies of 58 gsm have been supplied and the payment at the quoted rate was claimed by the petitioner. It was submitted that at any stage this fact was not concealed by the petitioner that copies of 58 gsm have been supplied and it was never claimed by him that he has supplied copies of 80 gsm. It was also submitted that orders for the supply of copy of 80 gsm were never issued to the petitioner and forged orders have been prepared later on to save the officers of the Department. It was submitted that on the basis of copies of the supply orders, petitioner applied for grant of loan and the bank sanctioned loan in his favour after satisfying itself with the genuineness of the supply orders. It was further submitted that as soon as it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner that copies of 80 gsm were actually to be supplied whereas he has supplied copies of 58 gsm, he by way of letter dated 30.3.2012 agreed to accept payment proportionately with the price of copies of 58 GSM but the prosecution is taking this letter as if petitioner has accepted that in fact order for supply of copies of 80 gsm were issued to him, but he deliberately in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy supplied copies of 58 gsm. It was also submitted that it appears that although the petitioner quoted his rate for the copies of 58 gsm but the tender approval committee took it as if it is for supply of copies of 80 gsm. As in the orders issued to the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that copies of 58 gsm are to be supplied, he was bound to supply copies of the same specification and, therefore, no criminal intent can be attributed on the part of the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner had no role to play for fresh invitation of tenders for supply of various items for which new budget was sanctioned. It was contended that rates quoted by the petitioner and others for the supply of various items in response to the tender notice dated 21.10.2011 were valid upto 31.3.2012. It was contended that the petitioner had no role to play for fresh invitation of tenders for supply of various items for which new budget was sanctioned. It was contended that rates quoted by the petitioner and others for the supply of various items in response to the tender notice dated 21.10.2011 were valid upto 31.3.2012. It was also submitted that no iota of evidence has been collected during investigation showing criminal conspiracy on the part of the petitioner or his meeting with co-accused or any other person. It was contended that if the purchase price of the petitioner is taken together with the expenses incurred by him for the procurement and supply of copies at various centers, the price quoted by the petitioner is not at all disproportionate showing undue advantage to him. 4. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that from the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected during investigation, it has prima facie been found that the petitioner and the co-accused with a malafide intention to cause undue advantage to petitioner and to cause undue loss to State Government entering into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof the petitioner supplied copies of 58 gsm instead of 80 gsm. It was submitted that on investigation it was found that in the office copy of the supply order, copies of 80 gsm were mentioned whereas in the copy of the supply order provided to the petitioner copies of 58 gsm were mentioned. According to learned Public Prosecutor, it is clear indication of conspiracy between petitioner and co-accused. It was also submitted that supply rate quoted by the petitioner is disproportionate to purchase price and the incidental expenses incurred by him. 5. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the evidence collected during investigation, which has been produced before me by way of case diary, it cannot be said that the offences for which FIR has been registered are not disclosed or made out against the petitioner even prima facie. It is well settled legal position that if from the perusal of FIR and the evidence collected, a cognisable offence is disclosed to have been committed by a person, then High Court should not quash such an FIR at a preliminary stage in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India and FIR can be quashed/set aside only when it is found that essential ingredients to constitute offence are not made out even prima facie. Similarly, criminal proceedings can be quashed if continuance of the same is barred by any law but it can be done only when it is so found on perusal of FIR or complaint, as the case may be. Well settled legal position is also that at this stage the evidence and the allegation made cannot be analysed in detail as is expected to be done after conclusion of trial. In the present case, it is shown that tenders were invited for the supply of drawing copies of 80 gsm whereas the petitioner quoted rate for supply of copies of 58 gsm. Supply orders were issued by the co-accused in favour of the petitioner for various items including drawing copies without inviting fresh tenders in violation of the procedure as prescribed under the provisions of GF & AR. Office copy of the supply orders shows that drawing copies of 80 gsm were ordered to be supplied whereas in the copy of supply orders provided to petitioner it was mentioned that copies of 58 gsm are to be supplied. In the letter dated 30.3.2012, it has been admitted by the petitioner that orders were issued for the supply of copies of 80 gsm whereas he has supplied copies of 58 gsm. It is well settled legal position that it is very hard to collect direct evidence for offence under Section 120-B IPC and it can be proved even on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The present case is not of that rare category in which the FIR is required to be quashed at the preliminary stage. 6. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.