The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG CRL. MISC.APPLN.(SH)NO.17 OF 2013 With CRL. MISC.APPLN.(SH)NO.18 OF 2013 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. Shri Peter A. Thorose S/o (L) A.A. Thorose Principal, St. Peter’s College Shillong. Smt. Dancy D. Syiem Vice Principal, St. Peter’s College Shillong. ……Petitioners. -Versus- State Through Central Bureau of Investigation. Director General Central Bureau of Investigation. North Eastern Council Through Secretary Nongrim Hills, Shillong. …..Respondents. BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. NANDAKUMAR SINGH For the Petitioners :: Mrs. PDB Baruah Mr.S Sen Ms. P. Das Advocates. 2 For the Respondents :: Mr. VK. Jindal, Sr. Advocate Mr.S. Dey, Advocate Date of hearing :: 03.10.2013 Date of Judgment & order:: 31.12.2013 JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. Heard Mrs.PDB Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Mr.VK Jindal, learned Sr.counsel assisted by Mr.S.Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents CBI. 2. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, it appears that the core questions fall for consideration in the present revision petition are (1)“For ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice in the present case, whether the court can look into the documents and materials produced by the petitioners at the time of consideration of the charge? (2) Whether this court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India for entertaining the present revision petition? 3 3. It is well settled that there is no catalogue of cases where the Court for “ex debito justitiae” can look into the evidence and materials produced by the accused at the time of consideration of the charge and that there shall not be roving and fishing enquiry at the time of consideration of charge, otherwise there shall be mini trial at the time of consideration of the charge. Normally, at the time of framing of charge, the trial court is required to, and can consider only the police report referred to U/s 173 of the Cr.PC and documents sent with and only the right of the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) on the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Scheme called “Holistic Cluster Approaches at grass root level for sustainable development in North East Region” by St. Peter’s College, Shillong which was funded by the Science and Technology Sector of NEC, Shillong during the year 2004-05. The
Legal Reasoning
proposal for the said project was submitted by Mr.Peter A Thorose, Principal, St. Peter’s College, Shillong (petitioner No.1) to Mr. R.P. Kharpuri, the then Director (S&T), NEC, Shillong on 11.02.2005 seeking financial assistance which was estimated at Rs.498.50 lakhs. 4 Mr. Kharpuri in turn directed Mr. A.D. Kharshiing, Extension Officer (Seismology), NEC to process such proposal from Mr. Peter A. Thorose and the said proposal was straight away processed by Mr.A.D Kharshiing, Extension Officer (Seismology) NEC, Shillong without the same being forwarded by the implementing agency, namely the Director of Higher & Technical Education, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong as required under the procedure. The proposal which was initiated in gross violation of the provisions of the rules was eventually concurred to by Mr. U.N. Majhi, the then Financial Advisor, NEC. The petitioner and other accused entered into a conspiracy and in consequence of conspiracy, they have committed various offences which ultimately caused the State exchequer to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs.1,26,09,580/-. On the above allegation, the CBI put up charge sheet against the present petitioners and others U/S 120 B,420,467,471 IPC as well as U/S 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI submitted the charge sheet and all the documents relied upon by the CBI to the Special Judge, CBI, Shillong and Special Judge, CBI, Shillong furnished those documents relied upon by the CBI to the accused persons. 5 5. The case was posted for consideration of the charge on many dates and on 16.11.2011 submissions were advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel for the present petitioners and fixed on 19.12.2011 for framing of charge against the present petitioners. But the framing of charge was delayed due to adjournment sought by the petitioners side and as such the charge is not yet framed against the petitioners. On 4.7.2012, the charge had been framed against the 3 (three) other accused. 6. It is pertinent to mention that before the framing of the charge against the present petitioners, the petitioners had filed a petition dated 8.8.2012 U/S 91 of the Cr.PC (reference Spl.Case No.5/2009) before the trial court, i.e. the Special Judge, Meghalaya, seeking the prayer for a direction to the CBI to produce the relevant files along with the charge sheet, the complete audited statements pertaining to the period from 22.03.2005 to 31.03.2009 which had already been submitted by the petitioners and also for a direction to the CBI to scrutinize the said audit report and file a report before the court, i.e. Special Judge, after scrutinizing the audited statement referred to by the petitioners for the above period. It is stated in the said application that the petitioners had submitted the audited statement comprising of income and expenditure account for the said project, i.e. Holistic 6 Cluster Approaches at grass root level for sustainable development in North East Region, for which the NEC had sanctioned the amount of Rs.2.67 crores, from 22.3.2005 to 31.3.2009 containing all the trial balance, cash book, bank book, journal books and ledger account coupled with all the original vouchers which are now either with the CBI or with the NEC as depicted by the correspondence dated 16.6.2010 and 27.7.2010 to the NEC. The NEC vide its letter dated 17.12.2009 informed the CBI that they were fully satisfied and had accepted the expenditure of Rs.2.67 crores incurred by the College, i.e. St.Peter’s College, and that the implementing agency, i.e. the St.Peter’s College, Shillong, had spent more than what had been released by the NEC. It is also further stated by the petitioners that the NEC during the above mentioned relevant period had disbursed the grant-in-aid to the College, i.e. St.Peter’s College, Shillong to the tune of Rs.2.67 crores. Income and expenditure account shows that: Rs.77 lacs approx.has been utilized on the “A. up-gradation of laboratory, B. Rs. 3 lacs on filed studies/visits, C. Rs.24 lacs appx. On laboratory analysis; D. Rs.52 lacs appx. on Socio Economic Surveys for upliftment, protection works; E. Rs.1.32 crores appx. on capacity building for alternative lilvelihoods (Training Centre, village IT empowerment Centres,etc.); F. Rs.5,000/- on workshops/conferences. G. Rs.4.25 lakhs appx. on Administrative cost for e.g. Appointment of staff,etc.; H. Rs.4.87 lacs appx. on AMC of laboratory equipments; I. Rs.3.39 lacs appx. on 7 consultancy charges; and J. Rs.30,000/- on contingency”. It is also stated in the said petition that the CBI has registered a case against the St.Peter’s College on the allegation that out of the total of Rs.2.67 crores released by the NEC, St.Peter’s College for implementing the scheme, Holistic Cluster Approaches at grass root level for sustainable development in North East Region, targeted for the villages in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, a sum of Rs.1.26 crores approximately had been misutilised by the College. But the CBI had not looked into the detailed income and expenditure account for which the audit reports were submitted on 16.6.2010 and 22.7.2010 respectively and submitted the charge sheet hastily on 30.7.2010. Had the said documents been looked into and considered by the CBI, the CBI would not have submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners. The learned trial court vide its order dated 21.9.2012 had dismissed the said application for the reason that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Rukmani Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors: (2008) 14 SCC 1 and (ii) State of Orissa Vs. D.N. Padhi: (2005) 1 SCC 568 and prosecution cannot be directed to furnish the complete audited statement on the prayer of the petitioners. 8 7. In the revision petition, i.e. the Cril.Petn.(SH) NO.11 of 2013 filed against the said judgment and order of the trial court dated 21.9.2012, this Court affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2013 for the reason that only the police report U/S 173 of the Cr.PC and documents relied upon for submitting Police report could be looked into at the time of consideration of the charge and accused cannot have the right to require the court to cause production of some documents not relied upon by the prosecution in order to consider the case of the accused and accordingly said application U/S 91 of the Cr.PC urging the Court to call for all documents not relied upon by the prosecution is not maintainable in law. But this court had not decided the core questions mentioned above called for consideration in the present revision petition in the earlier judgment and order dated 20.3.2013. In other words, what the court had decided vide judgment and order dated 20.3.13 in the said revision petition was that the said application U/S 91 of the Cr.PC for a direction to the CBI to produce the audited statement and others which are not annexed in the charge sheet and/or police report and not relied upon by the prosecution is not maintainable under the law. It is the case of the petitioners in the present revision that the documents and materials produced by the 9 petitioners in the present revision petition, if considered, would show that in the interest of justice and also for preventing the abuse of the process, the case of the petitioners put forth in the present revision petition is required to be considered even at the time of consideration of the charge. 8. The succinct facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition by the petitioners are to be looked into for deciding the core questions fall for consideration in the present revision petition. In the year 2004-05, St. Peter’s College, Shillong applied for expansion of 30 years old existing scheme carried out with Meghalaya Environment and Wildlife Society (for short “MEWS”,), an NGO duly registered in 1979 supported by the St.Peter’s College and recognized by the United States, World Bank, the scheme namely, scheme, Holistic Cluster Approaches at grass root level for sustainable development in North East Region, to the respondent No.3 to be funded by the Science and Technology Sector of NEC, Shillong primarily to save forest and wild life, upgrade education and help alternative employment generation. For that scheme, St.Pt. College submitted the project report to the NEC on 8.2.2005. The said project report dated 8.2.05 is available at page 16 to 24 of the revision petition. In the said project report dated 8.2.2005, it is stated that the 10 said scheme had already been initiated at Arunachal Pradesh and make advance expenditure from the own source of the petitioners and the same would be reimbursed in anticipation of NEC sanction. The said project report was forwarded and recommended by the implementing agency, namely Director of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong as required under the procedure vide letter dated 28.2.2005 at Annexure-A1 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.1 & 2. In the said forwarding letter of the implementing agency dated 28.2.2005, i.e. the letter of the Joint Director of Higher and Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong to the Director, North Eastern Council, Shillong, it is clearly stated that the project report submitted by the Principal of St. Peter’s College, Shillong was also enclosed therewith which is self explanatory and NEC may kindly consider extending of financial support as per proposal submitted. The NEC under its order dated 18.3.2005 had accorded administrative approval for implementing of the scheme (research based Holistic cluster approaches at grassroots levels for sustainable development in NER) by the St. Peter’s College at a total estimated cost of Rs. 4,98,50,000/- (Rupees four crore ninety eight lacs and fifty thousand)only for a period of 3 years and sanction is subject to the terms and conditions under which projects should be 11 implemented as per the scheme submitted by the St. Peter’s College, Shillong. The copy of the said order dated 18.03.2005 is available at Annexure-II, page 25, of the revision petition, which reads as follows: “
Decision
ORDER Secretary NEC in exercise of the financial powers authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide their No.10/586-NE.II dated 8th May, 1987 has accorded Administrative Approval for implementation of the scheme “Research –based Holistic Cluster approaches at Grassroots levels for Sustainable Development in NER” by St. Peter’s College at a total estimated cost of Rs.4,98,50,000/- (Rupees four crore ninety eight lakhs and fifty thousand only) for a period of 3 years. The sanction is subjected to the following terms and 2) conditions: i) ii) iii) The project should be implemented as per the scheme submitted by the St. Peter’s College, Shillong. A separate inventory of all computer items, software, laboratory equipments etc. purchased under the scheme should be properly maintained by St. Peter’s College, Shillong. The support from NEC will be limited to Rs.4,98,50,000/-. Any escalation the implementing agency from their own source. in cost would be borne by 3) The following are the break-up of the project cost: Up-gradation of lab Field studies/visits Laboratory Analysis - - - 12000000 1100000 3200000 Socio economic surveys for target 5 Villages in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya - 13500000 Capacity building for alternative Livelihoods Workshops Conferences - - 14000000 2400000 12 Preparation of Project Report Admin expenses –outsourcing Appointment of staff and resource Persons AMC of lab equipment Consultancy charge Contingency TOTAL - - - - - 200000 600000 950000 500000 1400000 = 49850000 2. Further, Secretary NEC in exercise of the financial powers stipulated under para 1 above has accorded sanction for the drawal of Rs.48,06,000/- (Rupees forty eight lakhs and six thousand only) as 1st installment by means of crossed demand draft payable to the Principal St. Peter’s College, Shillong. 3. Subsequent release of Funds will be on the basis of submission of progress report quarterly along with expenditure details. 4. The Expenditure on this account would be debitable to the Major Head “2552”NE Areas: 00,800-Other expenditure 02.02-Consultancy & R of D Project, 02.02.28 – Professional Services; 02.02.31 – grant-aid under Grant No.29 of the Department of Development for North East during 2004-3005. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Wing, NEC 5. vide their Dy. No.553 dated 18.3.2005. Sd/- (R.P. Kharpuri) i/c Director(S&T), NEC.” 9. The NEC under its letter dated 29.08.2007, Annexure-III to the revision petition, congratulated all the staff members and the Principal of the St.Peter’s College , Shillong for Research Based Holistic Approaches to Sustainable Development in NER. The Director (S&T)) of the NEC under his letter dated 19.12.2008 to the 13 Principal, St. Peter’s College, Shillong, i.e. the petitioner No.1, disputed that the purchase of the land at the cost of Rs.2.00 crores out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.2.67 crores was not a part of the scheme. The Director (S&T) under his letter dated 26.11.2008 directed the petitioner no.1 to clarify whether or not the purchase of the land was a part of the detailed project report (DPR) submitted to the NEC. The said letters dated 19.12.2008 and 26.11.2008 are available at Annexure-B, .i.e. at pages 19 & 20, of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 under his letter dated 21.3.2009 to the Director(S&T), NEC, Shillong clarified that under page no.6 of the scheme under the head “(iii) Holistic Cluster Approach Capacity Building/Training & IT Awareness” wherein it clearly states “Major component would entail infrastructure development of built up space, land of adequate proportion” the purchase of the land is a component of the scheme and if it is not acceptable the petitioner agreed to adjust the cost of land procurement with other components under the scheme as their share of expenditure. The petitioner no.1 under his letter dated 6.5.2009 requested the Director(S&T), NEC Shillong to treat the said letter of the petitioner dated 21.3.2009 and also expenditure components which were controverted by the NEC as withdrawn and may be treated as irrelevant and detailed upto date reconciled statement of 14 accounts will be submitted in due course. The Director(S&T), NEC under his letter dated 25.5.2009 requested the petitioner to furnish the detail item-wise expenditure incurred under the various sub-heads particularly with reference to Up-gradation of Lab-Built up space, Spatial requirement as well as Capacity Building – Training Centre, etc. vis-à-vis the audited statements already submitted (Annexure-D1 to the rejoinder affidavit). Again, the Director (S&T), NEC requested the petitioner to furnish scheme relevant supporting vouchers, accounts, etc. exclusively against NEC’s grant component of Rs.2.67 crores and also up to date physical progress report of implementation and the list of beneficiaries ( Annexure-D3 to the rejoinder affidavit). It is stated that in response to the said letter of the Director (S&T), NEC, the petitioner No.1 under his letter dated 27.6.2009 (Annexure- D4 to the rejoinder affidavit) submitted the accrual expenditure incurred specifically against the NEC fund released so far as: (1) Rs.67.00 lacs towards R&D etc. activities for which UC has already been submitted; (2) Rs.60.00 lacs for infrastructure development of labs and (3) Rs.140.oo lacs for IT empowerment for various institutions in NE. It is also clarified that the land and buildings have been solely contributed by the petitioners from their end. In that letter dated 27.06.2009, it is clarified that Rs.2.00 crores utilized for purchasing of the land has been solely contributed by the petitioners 15 from their end as their contribution. The letter dated 27.6.2009 reads as follows: “LETTER NO.NEC/EOS/0109 27.06.2009 To Director(S&T) NEC Shillong. Sub: Letter No.NEC/ST/HOLISTIC/344/2005 Sir, This has a reference to your office letters of above reference dated 16.6.09, 25.5.09. The accrual expenditure incurred specifically against NEC sanction release so far are as follows: 1. Rs.67.00 lakhs towards R&D etc. activities for which UC has Already been sanctioned; 2. Rs.60.00 lakhs is for Infrastructure Development of labs. 3. Rs.140 lakh for IT equipment for various institutions in NE. It may be clarified that the land/building etc. component has been solely contributed by us from our end as our contribution. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, Sd/- D. Syiem Vice Principal” 10. Under the letter of the petitioners dated 28.8.2009 they have submitted the progress report for the scheme Research Based Holistic Approaches at Grassroots Level for Sustainable Development 16 in NER to the NEC and the said letter dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure-D5 to the rejoinder) reads as follows: Dt.28.8.2009 “ To Director(S&T) NEC Shillong Sub:-Progress Report Sir, While we are in the process of preparing out third volume of the Report on progress in the scheme Research based Holistic approaches at grassroots level for sustainable development in NER, we would like to forward a copy of the interim report on progress made. Enclosed please find a list of institutions to which IT hard and software has been allotted. A number of these have been personally visited by myself and the programme is found to be running smoothly there. Some are yet to collect their equipment, (Ramakrishna Mission has an allotment for 4 more units in remote areas, in addition to RKM Tirap in view of their noble grassroots level work.) while most have received second rounds of hard and software based on their performance. This is ongoing depending on my inspections of various locations. Also, we have established and set up the laboratories for Remote Sensing and geo Information Systems. In addition we have also set up a Molecular Biology (DNA) Laboratory. Further we have also set up a well equipped Digital & Classical Animation Labortory. These facilities are crucial to our further research efforts. We take pleasure in inviting you to come and visit these at your convenience, and to please help us to include the paleontological studies in the programme of research as this is your special filed of professionalism. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, 17 Sd/- P.A. Thorose Principal.” 11. Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Shillong under his letter dated 21.10.2009 requested the Director(S&T), NEC, Shillong to clarify the expenditure incurred in the said schemes. The letter dated 21.10.2009 is available at Annexure-E to the rejoinder affidavit and it reads as follows: “To : The Director(S&T) North Eastern Council Nongrim Hills, Shillong. Sub: :Investigation in case No.RCSHG2009A0006 Sir, Please refer to your letter No.NEC/ST/ HOLISTIC/ 344/2005 (PT) dtd.13/10/2009 forwarding photocopies of detailed expenditure vouchers, ledger accounts etc. against the sanction release of Rs.2.67 crore Reference may also kindly be made to your letter No.NEC/ST/HOLLISTIC/344/2005(pt) dtd.22/7/2009 submitted earlier forwarding copies of detailed expenditures to this office where total expenditure incurred have been found to be Rs.3.33 crores (approx). In this connection, you are requested to kindly clarify the following:- If the expenditure of Rs.2.67 crores sent vide your letter No. /ST/HOLLISTIC/344/2005(pt) dtd. 13.10.2009 have been accepted by NEC as eligible under the scheme; If the expenditure of Rs.3.33 crores sent vide your letter No. /ST/HOLLISTIC/344/2005(pt) dt.22.7.2009 have been accepted by NEC as eligible under the scheme; Whether the expenditure audited by CA for (A) Rs.2.00 crores certified by RNV & Co. vide dtd.27.3.2008, (B) Rs.0.48 crores certified by Susanta Roy & Co. vide dtd.15.6.2005 and (C) Rs.0.69 crores certified by Susanta Roy & Co. vide dated 1) 2) 3) 18 26.7.2005 have been accepted by NEC and whether the purchase of land is eligible under the scheme. Further, you are requested to indicate if NEC has so far evaluated the physical achievement of the scheme and if so the Evaluation Report may kindly be furnished to this office. The achievement so far and the remaining work to be done may also be indicated. Yours faithfully, Sd/-21.10.09 Superintendent of Police CBI,ACB, Shillong.” 12. In response to the said letter of the CBI dated 21.10.2009, the Director (S&T), NEC had furnished point-wise clarification under his letter dated 27.10.2009 to CBI and the said letter is available at Annexure-VIIA to the revision petition which reads as follows: “No.NEC/ST/HOLLISTIC/344/2005(pt) dt.27.10.09 To: The Superintendent of Police CBI CBI-ACB. Oakland Shillong-1. Sub: Scheme on “Holistic Cluster Approaches at Grassroots level for sustainable development in NER” by St. Peter’s College Shillong – Expenditure regarding. Ref: Your letter No.DPSHG 2009/5408/RCSHG 2009A0006 dtd 21.10.2009 Sir, I am to invite a reference to your letter DPSHG 2009/5408/RCSHG 2009A0006 dtd 21.10.2009 resting on the above subject and to furnish herewith point-wise clarification as desired: 19 1. The expenditure details of Rs.2.67 Cr. communicated vide our letter of even No. dtd.13.10.09 by and large appears to fit into the scheme head wise components and thus could be acceptable. Some of the photo copies of major expenditure vouchers on equipments etc.have been verified with the original copies produced by the College at the time of submission. This is currently under examination by our finance. 2. The expenditure details communicated vide our letter of even No. dtd. 22.7.2009 is not acceptable since it contains College’s share of expenditure component prior to as well as within period of sanction. 3. The Audited expenditure for (B) Rs.0.48 crore and (C) Rs.0.69 crore which was comprehensively accepted by our Finance for making 2nd and 3rd installment release could be reconciled with detailed expenditure vouchers (w.e.f.. actual date of sanction) received. However, the question of accepting the expenditure audit for (A) Rs.2 crore does not arise since we were in receipt only a reference photo copy of the statement at a latter stage without any supporting documents and hence purchase of land or building has not been agreed to since it is not explicitly an approved component under the scheme. (copies of relevant correspondence encl) As such we are not concern with any land/building procurement done by the college on their own and whatever expenditure vouchers/ bills etc. relevant to NEC’s sanction component release of Rs.2.67 cr. under the scheme received from the college only have all been communicated as requisitioned by your office apart from all the original file papers lying there. Following are some of the achievements made so far under the scheme excluding College’s own contributions: - - - - - - - - IMAGERY Production of 2 volumes of the R & D reports Production of 3rd volume(released Oct.24 2009) Installation of the following ADVANCED LABORATORIES; SATELITE & GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION (GIS) Laboratory. DIOXYNUCLEICACID & SEQUENCING BIOLOGY Laboratory Digital animation Laboratory Classical animation Laboratory Village IT empowerment through over 30 institutions spread the 3 states of in Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh an Assam. (DNA) MOLECULAR 20 Remaining works left to be done: - - - - - - - Centre building/Training Capacity upgradation & outsourcing/ infrastructure Lab upgradation remaining works Field studies visits/Environmental Training/ protection Laboratory analysis Socio economic surveys for upliftment/ protection works Seminars Reports/AMC/Consultancy/Contingency/ Admin expenses Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr.U.K. Mishra) Director(S&T)” 13. The Director (S&T), NEC under his letter dated 17.12.2009 to the CBI-ACB, Shillong clarified that the implementing agency, i.e. the petitioner has spent more than what has been released by the NEC so far and the said letter dated 17.12.2009 is available at Annexure-VIIB to the revision petition and it reads as follows: “No.NEC/ST/HOLISTIC/344/2005(Pt) dt.17.12.2009 To: Head of Branch CBI-ACB, Shillong Oakland Shillong-1. Sub: Investigation in case No.RCSHG2009A006 Your 2009A006 dtd 14.12.2009 letter No.DPSHG 2009/6368/RCSHG Ref: Sir, 21 to I am to your invite a reference letter No.DPSHG2009/6368/RCSHG2009A006dtd 14.12.2009 and to confirm our acceptance in principle to the expenditure of Rs.2.67 crores incurred under the scheme pending upto date audit report. In fact it would appear from our records that the implementing agency has spent more than what has been released by NEC so far. to accommodate It is also clarified that the implementing agency has list of beneficiaries/ the the flexibility institutions under the scheme after obtaining adequate feedback We had only suggested a list of 23 institutions for possible coverage which is enclosed. Yours faithfully, Sd/- r.U.K. Mishra) Director (S&T)” 14. The Director (S&T), NEC under his letter dated 5.2.2010 requested the petitioner to furnish original documents and information, i.e. audited statement. The petitioners under letter dated 22.7.2010 had furnished copy of the books of accounts, original copies of expenditure vouchers of St. Peter’s College under the Scheme of “Holistic Sustainable Development in NER” to the NEC and the said letter dated 22.7.2010 is available at Annexure-H to the rejoinder affidavit which reads as follows: To: The extension officer(Seismology North Eastern Council Secretariat, Shillong. Sub: Submission of a copy of Books Accounts & Original Copies of remaining Expenditure Vouchers of St.Peter’s College, Dhankheli, Shillong-793003 the Scheme of “Holistic Sustainable under Development in NER”. 22 Dear Sir, Please refer the above and find herewith the following Books of Account, Original remaining Voucher files for your records and consideration:- A. Book containing – 1. Income and Expenditure Account for a the period from 22nd March, 2005 to 31st March, 2009 – 3 Written pages, Trial Balance – 1 Written page, Cash Book – 63 Written pages, Bank Book – 3 Written pages, Journal Book – 27 Written Pages, Ledger Account – 11 Written Pages . Total 208 Written Pages excluding cover pages. 2. Original Voucher File Sl.No.1 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03.2009 with original Cash Memos/Bills/Invoices/ Vouchers/Receipts for A/c Field Visits – containing 350 sheets 3. Original Voucher File Sl.No.2 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash Memos/Bills/Documents/ Receipts for A/c Lab Consumables – containing 32 sheets. 4. the Original Vouchers File Sl.No.3 for period 22.03.2005 to 31.03.2009 with Original Cash Memos/Bills./Receipts etc. for A/c Research Books – containing 127 sheets. 5. 22.03.2005 Memos/Bills/Receipts etc Machineries & Furniture – containing 22 sheets. Original Voucher File Sl.No.4 for the period to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash for A/c Equipment, 6. Original Voucher File Sl.No.5 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash Memos/Bills/Receipts for A/c Spatial Requirement – containing 9 sheets. 7. Original Voucher File Sl.No.6 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash Memos/Bills/Vouchers/ Slips etc.for A/c Workshop Requirement – containing 13 sheets. 8. Original Voucher File Sl.No.7 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03/2009 with Original Vouchers, etc. for A/c Outsourcing/Staff/Resource Persons – containing 121sheets. 9. 22.03.2005 Original Voucher File Sl.No.8 for the period to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash 23 Memos/Bills/Receipts etc. maintenance Expenses – containing 39 sheets. for A/c Equipment 10. Original Voucher File Sl.No.9 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash Memos/Bills/Receipts etc. for A/c Lab Repair & maintenance – containing 109 sheets. 11. Original Voucher File Sl.No.10 for the period 22.03.2005 to 31.03/2009 with Original Cash Memos/Bills/Vouchers for A/c Printing Stationery – containing 13 sheets. We are in full hope that you will be fully satisfied with the records with documents filed as stated above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Vice Principal St. Peter’s College” Dt.22nd July,2010 It is also stated that earlier to 22.7.2010, the petitioner under his letter dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure-I) submitted the copies of the original documents regarding expenditure of the fund sanctioned to the NEC. The Director (S&T), NEC under his letter dated 23.02.2010 furnished all the relevant documents and information consisting of 264 pages which will be required in the investigation of the case to the CBI. The said letter dated 23.02.2010 is available at Annexure-F3 to the rejoinder affidavit which reads as follows: No.NEC/ST/HOLISTIC/344/2005(Pt) 23rd/02/2010 To The Head of Branch 24 CBI, ACB, Shillong Oakland, Shillong0793001 Sub: Investigation in case No.RCSHG2009A006 Ref: (i) Your letter No.DPSHG2009/0555/RCSHG2009A 006 dated 5.2.2010 (ii) Our letter No. NEC/ST/HOLISTIC/344/2005(Pt) Dtd.15.2.2010 Sir, As desired vide your letter under reference above, kindly find enclosed the relevant information (264 pages) along with forwarding letter obtained from St. Peter’s College. Yours faithfully, Sd/ (Dr.U.K. Mishra) Director (S&T)” 15. It is the clear cut case of the petitioner in the present revision petition that if the documents mentioned above and also the documents annexed to the revision petition are considered at the time of framing of charge, there shall not be prima facie case for framing the charges against the petitioners by the trial court. 16. The CBI had submitted the charge sheet hastily on 30.7.2010 without considering and also without annexing above documents and also the CBI had completely overruled the documents mentioned above. 17. It is fairly settled that the inherent powers U/S 482 of the Cr.PC has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously and for 25 ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists. It is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rules which govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Exercise of the inherent powers would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but all the decisions on the subject are that the court would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction where the allegation made in the complaint or the charged sheet as the case may be taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. The Apex Court in the case of State of State of Haryana & Ors. – Vrs – Bhajan Lal & Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the broad guidelines for exercise of the inherent powers U/S 482 Cr.PC and extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paras 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 & 102 of the SCC in Bhajan Lal (Supra) read as under: “97. Fazal Ali, J. reiterating his earlier view in Nagawwa (Smt) v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)1976) 3 SCC 736:1976 SCC (Cr)507:1976 Supp SCR 123, wherein he has given certain category of cases in which an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside and further stating that the same principle laid down in that decision would apply mutatis mutandis to a criminal complaint also, has explained the position of law in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar: (1985) 2 SCC 370,395:1985 SCC (Cri) 180 as follows: (SCC p.295, para 59) “It is well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under section 482 CrPC to quash a FIR or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same 26 per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.” then was Speaker for the bench, Ranganath Mishra, J, as “98. he in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre: (1988) 1 SCC 692 has expounded the law as follows: (SCC p.695, para 7) “The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” the court may while taking Venkatachaliah, J in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan: “99. (1988) 4 SCC 655 has stated that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.”