Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 999 (JHR)

Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-05-07

B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the A.C.B. 2. Instant revision application has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 38 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance (Special) Case No.20 of 2013 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.19 of 2013 by which the prayer for discharge was rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that scheme of Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme (a scheme of Central Government) in which Ranchi, Khunti, Ramgarh and Pakur districts were taken up for construction of electric transmission for upgradation of electric supply in those districts as well as installation of meter etc. As per allegation, the Ranchi district was allotted Rs.18.81 Crores approx in the year 2004 for this programme but the tender was finalized in the year 2008 that prompted revision of cost to Rs.34.25 Crores approx causing loss to the State of 117.65 per cent more. Likewise, allotment of fund was made for it and as per allegation the cost was revised for giving benefit to the tenderers as well as officials of the Board. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that these allegations are not applicable to this petitioner as the delay caused in issuing tender was not because of him. This petitioner cannot be held responsible as he was not posted and entrusted to handle this project before the year 2007 as he had joined in this post in the year 2008. This petitioner has acted as promptly just to avoid surrender of the amount to the Central Government and tried to finalize the tenders so that the amount granted/allotted by the Central Government could be utilized for the interest of the State Government. This petitioner was merely a member of tender committee and he was not responsible for revision of cost. The entire matter relating to tender, revision of cost price were placed before the Board and the Board has taken the decision in this regard. He further submitted that actually the tender was awarded at a lesser price then it was awarded in the State of Bihar. He also submitted that the court below without examining the matter from this angle and by referring the instances, rejected his application for discharge. 4. He further submitted that actually the tender was awarded at a lesser price then it was awarded in the State of Bihar. He also submitted that the court below without examining the matter from this angle and by referring the instances, rejected his application for discharge. 4. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that actually this petitioner was responsible officer who was entrusted for the utilization of the amount received under the Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme. The report of the Accountant General indicated that the Government has incurred a loss of Rs.56.78 Cores approx as the amount was not properly utilized in time. This petitioner was actively involved in this scheme by misusing his official position causing wrongful loss to the Government as he conspired with the other accused person to allow wrongful gain to the tenderer company. This petitioner has also deviated from the advice of the Consultant and waived several objections at his level. He also submitted that the court below has discussed the material brought against this petitioner that the scheme was of the year 2004 and the estimated cost of Rs.12.79 Crores approx which was enhanced in the year 2008 to Rs.34.25 Crores which was 2.5 times more and the same was given to contractor for Rs.40.94 Crores approx. which was 117.65% more than the original estimate. In Khunti township, initially estimate for the work was 3.11 Crores but by ignoring the conditions the work order was given at Rs.23.10 Crores. For the district of Ramgarh initial estimated cost was Rs.13.87 Crores but was revised to Rs.27.67 Crores. Likewise the rates were also revised for the district of Jamtara and estimated cost was revised to a much higher percentage. This petitioner was working at the relevant time as Electrical Superintending Engineer who carried out these illegal acts causing loss to the Government. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the A.C.B. that Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme was to reduce A.T.N.S. loss of electricity, reduce the average burning of transformers, improve the quality of electrical supply, construct new 33 KV lines, replace old wires, install new transformers, repair old distribution of meter etc. and Mecon and RITES were appointed as consultant where RITES prepared D.P.R. on the basis of which tenders were floated. and Mecon and RITES were appointed as consultant where RITES prepared D.P.R. on the basis of which tenders were floated. A large number of irregularities were found and this petitioner was posted at the Headquarter of the Board at Ranchi from 01.08.1997 to 04.08.2010 and held several important positions in the service. He was connected with A.P.D.R.P. projects since its inception from the year 2004 to 2010 but from the year 2008 to July, 2009 he acted as Chief Engineer of this project. Due to irregularity committed in execution of this project, the cost was revised and extra amount was spent in execution of the project. This petitioner did not care that the bank guarantee submitted by the tenderers had also lapsed and invalid tenders were accepted. 5. Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application, it appears that the petitioner being official of Electricity Board was involved in execution of the scheme of A.P.D.R.P. for which Central Government had provided fund. This scheme was to be executed in the districts of Ranchi, Khunti, Ramgarh, Jamtara and Pakur and the special amount was earmarked for each district. As per the report of the Accountant General, the estimated cost were revised to much higher level and for its execution, the tender was awarded on revised rate which was higher and the same was mentioned as 117.65%. Likewise, in other town also, the original estimates were revised and combining together much loss caused to the Government. In a decision of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 320 SC. Honble Supreme Court has held that at the time of consideration of discharge application or an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous materials and the court is only required to see the materials on record which reasonably connects an accused with the alleged crime. It further appears that the court below has considered the materials collected against this petitioner by the prosecution agency and also find sufficient material against the petitioner for which charge could have been framed. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 38 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance (Special) Case No.20 of 2013 corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No.19 of 2013. 6. In the result, instant application is dismissed.