High Court
Case Details
Scientist-B Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan (EIA and EMP) and M.K.Chakraborty posted as Scientist E-1/HOD of the said plan made an indent for purchasing Soil and Irrigation Kit. In the indent itself, they supplied the name of eight suppliers, though they were not dealing in Soil and Irrigation Kit of required specification leaving aside the name of M/s. Orbit Technology, authorized distributor of the said item in India deliberately. Accordingly, tender enquiry was issued to the said eight firms. Pursuant to that, five
Facts
firms including M/s. Allied Technology submitted their quotations. All the five quotations were managed to be submitted by Ajay Kumar Singh through one Tapan Kumar. On submission of the quotations, comparative statement of the quotations was prepared which were examined by S.K.Chaulya and the petitioner who recommended the name of M/s. Allied Technology as L-1 and encircled part of comparative chart containing details of M/s. Allied Technology. Thereafter supply order was issued to M/s. Allied Technology who did not supply materials within the time stipulated. However, after procuring Soil and Irrigation Kit from M/s. Orbit Technology, it was supplied to CMRI on 15.5.2000 at the cost of Rs.1,37,800/- against the actual cost of Rs.3,59,316/- and thereby they caused wrongful loss to CMRI to the tune of Rs.10,18,684/- On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner and other accused persons. Subsequently, an application for discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioner which was rejected, vide order dated 4.8.2012 which is under challenge.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie go to show that he was in league with each other to show favour to M/s. Allied Technology, who by supplying the Kit charged excessively and thereby CMRI was put to loss. Under the circumstances, I do find that there appears to be sufficient materials to proceed with the case. Hence the court seems to have rightly rejected the prayer for discharge. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. It be observed that any finding recorded for the purpose of disposal of this case shall not be prejudicial to the case of the parties. ( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/
Arguments
Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Dr. M.K.Chakraborty was working in EIA/EMP Section which was Research and Development wing of CMRI and in course of his research, when one Soil and Irrigation Kit was needed Dr. S.K.Chaulya made indent from Store and Purchase Department. Since it was reported that it is not available in the Store, an indent was made for its purchase wherein names of the suppliers were given but the name of the suppliers had been given by Store and Purchase Department. The said indent was forwarded to the purchase committee, who had to take decision over the matter of selection of the supplier for supply of the said item. The petitioner in no manner was concerned with the selection of the person to whom supply order was to be issued and it is under the decision of the purchase committee, supply order was issued to M/s. Allied Technology, New Delhi who supplied the materials which, according to the case of the prosecution, was supplied on exorbitant rate but for that the petitioner cannot be held responsible as he was not even knowing the proprietor of M/s. Allied Technology, New Delhi and in fact, there has been no evidence at all to the effect that there had been meeting of mind in between the petitioner and the said Ajay Kumar Singh. It was further submitted that after the quotations were received, comparative statement was prepared which was signed by one D.C.Goswami and was forwarded to S.K.Chaulya, who marked the name of the supplier, who has found to be L-1 and the petitioner M.K.Chakraborty simply counter signed over it and thereby in absence of any other material showing act of conspiracy, sufficient material cannot be said to be there for prosecuting the petitioner, M.K.Chakraborty who had simply been alleged to have counter signed over the comparative chart showing the name of L-1 which in absence of any material does not show culpability on the part of the petitioner and thereby the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the case. As against this, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submitted that during investigation, it has been found by the Investigating Agency that one indent was made by one S.K.Chaulya as well as by the petitioner for purchase of Soil and Irrigation Kit. Over the said indent even the name of the suppliers, who were not dealing with the product which was to be purchased, was given leaving aside the name of authorized dealer M/s. Orbit Technology, Hydrabad whose name as per the norms was to be given under the indent. Enquiries were issued to the eight tenderers, out of which five are said to have submitted their quotations but all those quotations had been managed by an employee of Ajay Kumar Singh, proprietor of M/s. Allied Technology. On receiving the quotation, when comparative chart was prepared, it was signed by S.K.Chaulya and was counter signed by the petitioner, though at the time he must have come across with the brochure of M/s. HACH Co. USA manufacturer of the said item, whose distributor in India was M/ s. Orbit Technology as this document was available with the document of M/s. Allied Technology. In spite of that, he did not point it out to the members of the purchase committee, as a result of which, work order was issued to M/s. Allied Technology, who after purchasing from M/s. HACH Co. supplied the kit but charged exorbitantly and thus, sequence of the event stated above goes to show that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other put CMRI to a great loss. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on one hand, the stand of the petitioner is that taking all the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to have gone in conspiracy with other accused, particularly with the supplier and did favour him by getting the supply order issued as all the acts of making indent and then putting the signature over the comparative chart are not at all sufficient to show that this petitioner in any manner was in league with other accused persons including the supplier whereas the stand which has been taken by the prosecution is that acts of the petitioner are as such which at this stage,