Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1011 (JHR)

Md. Shabbir Ali v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-06-30

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the A.C.B. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011 corresponding to Special Case No. 33 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 109 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was merely a Trainee Assistant Engineer who was engaged on a contract basis and he does not have any concern with the work which was allotted and for which fund was released in favour of the Under Secretary, Establishment, Department of Health and Family Welfare. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Under Secretary was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and it was his responsibility to have seen that the amount which was released be properly utilised in the construction of the building in terms of the contract. It has also been stated that the total amount of Rs. six crores was released in favour of the Under Secretary. He further submits that the overall supervision of the buildings which were constructed was vested upon the other persons including the Executive Engineer. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been singled out in the present case and it is a malicious prosecution as against him. 4. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Vigilance vehemently opposed the prayer made. 5. It appears from the allegations made in the FIR that for the construction of Primary Health Centre, Chataniya and Sub-Divisional Hospital, Nagar Untari in the district of Garhwa by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, an amount of Rs. six crores was released. Since there were some doubt with respect to the quality of the construction work pursuant to the direction of Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand a team was constituted by letter dated 18.06.2010 which after inquiry submitted its report on 06.07.2010. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Committee, an FIR was instituted against the concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer (Petitioner), Junior Engineer and the Contractor of the work in question. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Committee, an FIR was instituted against the concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer (Petitioner), Junior Engineer and the Contractor of the work in question. The inquiry report reveals that the construction work which was carried out in all the places mentioned in the contract was not according to the standard and the petitioner being an Assistant Engineer was especially deputed along with other officials for supervision of the buildings to be constructed. The inquiry report thus suggests that inferior quality of materials was used in construction, the details of which are already given in the inquiry report. A huge amount was released for construction of Primary Health Centre as well as Hospital, but on account of the inferior quality of work, most of the work could not be completed. The allegation which had been levelled against the petitioner prima-facie appears to be correct as he was also deputed to go and supervise the work along with the Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer. Moreover, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR and as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner investigation is still going on. 6. At this stage it would not be permissible to interfere in the investigation so conducted by the Vigilance, apart from the fact that prima-facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the offence appears to be palpable from the perusal of the FIR and Inquiry Report. Such circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to cause interference in the impugned order and accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.