Brijendra Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Judgment

1. The present application has been filed by the Applicant, Brijendra Singh, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No. 06 of 2023 dated 30.12.2023, the cognizance order dated 13.05.2024, and all consequential proceedings in CBI Case No. 04 of 2024, CBI v. Balram Ji Omar and Others, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun. The Applicant is presently on bail pursuant to the order of the trial court dated 28.05.2024.

2. The FIR giving rise to the present proceedings,dated 20.04.2022, was registered by the CBI, ACB Dehradun, in relation to alleged irregularities in the procurement of a road sweeping machine for AIIMS, Rishikesh. Six persons, including the present Applicant, were named as accused, along with certain unknown persons. Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 1 Ashish Naithani J.

The allegation in the FIR is that members of the Tender Evaluation/Store Purchase Committee of AIIMS, Rishikesh, entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Promedic Devices, a Delhi-based firm, and its proprietor, Puneet Sharma, to manipulate the tender process. It is alleged that eligible bidders, such as M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata, and M/s IOTA Engineering Corporation, Haryana, were disqualified on untenable grounds, while ineligible firms were declared successful.

4. The tender in question, bearing No. 24/Sweeping/267/2017, was floated on 27.10.2017 for the purchase of a road sweeping machine. Four firms submitted bids. The Store Purchase Committee, of which the Applicant was a member, disqualified two bidders and recommended award of contract in favour of M/s Promedic Devices at a cost of ₹2,05,22,938/-, with a Comprehensive Maintenance Contract valued at ₹35,98,256/-, resulting in a total outlay of about ₹2.41 crores.

5. It is alleged that the Committee overlooked glaring deficiencies in the bid documents of M/s Promedic Devices and M/s New India Corporation, ignored objections raised by regarding cartelisation, and thereby caused wrongful to AIIMS and corresponding wrongful gain to the said suppliers. It is further alleged that the machine supplied was defective or refurbished, ran only for 124 hours, and incurred substantial repair costs.

6. Upon investigation, the CBI filed Charge Sheet No. 06 of 2023 dated 30.12.2023 against the Applicant and other members of the Store Purchase Committee under Sections 420 and 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended). Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. On 13.05.2024, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused persons, including the present Applicant, to face trial.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has approached this Court by way of the present petition, contending that the prosecution is untenable and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

9. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the prosecution against the Applicant is wholly misconceived. It is argued that the Applicant is a Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy, whose expertise is confined to medical education and teaching, and who had no role in either drafting the tender specifications or issuing the corrigenda that allegedly altered the terms to favour a particular supplier. The Applicant was merely an ex-officio member of the Store Purchase Committee by virtue of his post, and his role was confined to signing the comparative charts prepared by the Junior Administrative Officers of the Tender Department.

10. It is contended that the corrigenda were prepared and issued by other officials, including Dr. Balram Ji Omar, Dr. Anubha Aggarwal, Shri D.P. Lakhera, and Shri Anshuman Gupta, and yet while some of these officials have been cited as prosecution witnesses, the Applicant alone has been arrayed as an accused. Such selective prosecution, according to learned counsel, is arbitrary and mala fide.

11. Learned counsel further argued that there is no allegation of the Applicant having demanded or accepted any illegal gratification, nor is Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 3 Ashish Naithani J. there any material to suggest that he personally derived any pecuniary benefit from the transaction. Mere alleged negligence or lack of due diligence cannot attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC or Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The requirement of dishonest intention, which is integral to both provisions, is absent in the case of the Applicant.

12. It was also submitted that the cognizance order suffers from manifest legal error, as it takes cognizance under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a provision which stood deleted by the 2018 Amendment Act. By way of substitution, Section 13 was completely re- enacted, and the substituted provision alone holds the field.

13. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the five-Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. NCT of Delhi, (2023) 4 SCC 731, to argue that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction in corruption cases. In the present matter, there is neither an allegation of demand nor any material to show acceptance, which by itself nullifies the prosecution.

14. On these grounds, it was urged that the prosecution against the Applicant is without basis, and continuance of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent–CBI opposed the application. It was contended that the Applicant was not a mere formal signatory, but an active member of the Store Purchase Committee, which disqualified eligible bidders like M/s Eureka Forbes and M/s IOTA Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 4 Ashish Naithani J. Engineering on untenable grounds, while qualifying ineligible firms such as M/s Promedic Devices and M/s New India Corporation despite serious deficiencies in their bid papers.

16. It was submitted that the Committee, including the Applicant, overlooked specific objections raised by other prospective bidders regarding manipulation of specifications, and signed the comparative sheet recommending award of the contract to M/s Promedic Devices at an inflated price. Such conduct, according to learned counsel for the CBI, indicates complicity and cannot be brushed aside as mere negligence.

17. Learned counsel further argued that the charge sheet discloses specific acts of omission and commission on the part of the Applicant, including his participation in disqualifying certain bidders without affording opportunity to cure technical deficiencies, and his role in recommending the bid of M/s Promedic Devices despite lack of supporting documents. It was urged that the cumulative effect of these acts, reveals a clear conspiracy and dishonest intention, attracting the offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC as well as Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

18. It was also emphasized that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) is limited, and the High Court ought not to evaluate sufficiency of evidence or conduct a mini-trial at this stage. Where the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet disclose commission of offences, the settled law as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116, is that proceedings ought not to be quashed. Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 5 Ashish Naithani J.

19. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Applicant is that he was only an ex officio member of the Store Purchase Committee, required to sign comparative charts prepared by the administrative staff, and that he had no role in altering the tender specifications or issuing corrigenda which are alleged to have favoured M/s Promedic Devices.

20. It is urged that officials who were more centrally placed in the decision-making chain have been made prosecution witnesses, while the Applicant has been singled out as an accused. It is also contended that there is no allegation of receipt of any illegal gratification, no material suggesting personal gain, and no proof of dishonest intention, which is the core of offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI contends that the Applicant, as a member of the Committee, participated disqualification of two bidders, namely M/s Eureka Forbes and M/s IOTA Engineering, and in qualifying M/s Promedic Devices and M/s New India Corporation despite apparent deficiencies in their documents. The comparative sheet, bearing the Applicant’s signature, formed the basis of the recommendation to award the contract to M/s Promedic Devices at a significantly higher cost.

22. The Respondent maintains that this conduct discloses complicity and that the evidentiary weight of his role, whether active or passive, is a matter for trial. Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 6 Ashish Naithani J.

23. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) does not permit this Court to embark upon a roving enquiry into the probative value of material or to conduct a mini-trial. The test is whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. Where factual issues of mens rea, conspiracy, or benefit are disputed, such matters cannot be resolved at the threshold stage.

24. Examined in this light, the allegations in the charge sheet attribute to the Applicant specific acts of omission and commission. He is alleged to have concurred in the disqualification of certain firms on tenuous grounds and in the qualification of others despite obvious deficiencies.

25. Whether he did so in mechanical reliance on staff reports, or whether there was an element of conscious participation in a conspiracy, are factual questions which can only be established through evidence. At this stage, the material is sufficient to bring the Applicant within the fold of persons answerable at trial.

26. Much stress has been laid by the Applicant on the absence of pecuniary advantage to him. While the absence of material suggesting illegal gratification is a factor in his favour, it does not conclusively exonerate him at the stage of cognizance. Conspiracy or abuse of position under the Prevention of Corruption Act can, in principle, extend to collective decision-making that results in wrongful loss, even where individual pecuniary benefit is not immediately traceable. Whether the Applicant acted innocently, negligently, or dishonestly requires appreciation of evidence, not assumption at the stage of quashing. Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 7 Ashish Naithani J.

27. The argument regarding Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act having been deleted by the 2018 Amendment also deserves consideration. The Applicant submits that cognizance under a repealed provision is impermissible. While substitution indeed operates retrospectively, the question whether acts committed prior to the amendment but prosecuted after the amendment would attract the old or the new provision involves a nuanced interpretation. The charge sheet in fact cites both the old Section 13(1)(d) and the substituted Section 13. This mixed application of provisions is undoubtedly open to challenge at trial, but it cannot, in my view, be a ground for quashing the entire proceedings at the inception. The trial court will necessarily have to determine which statutory provision correctly applies, after evaluating the timing of the acts alleged and the legislative intent behind the amendment.

28. On an overall conspectus, therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations against the Applicant are wholly baseless or fall outside the legal ingredients of the offences charged. The Applicant’s case raises debatable questions of fact and law, but none so clear as to justify the extraordinary step of terminating the prosecution without trial. The protective jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to short-circuit a prosecution merely because the defence appears plausible; it is confined to cases where the prosecution is demonstrably untenable on its face.

29. Accordingly, this Court finds that the allegations, when taken at their face value, disclose the commission of offences and justify the continuation of proceedings. The question of whether the Applicant acted without knowledge, or whether the decision-making was manipulated by others while he was a mere signatory, is a matter squarely within the province of the trial court to assess upon evidence. Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 8 Ashish Naithani J. ORDER For the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of the charge sheet dated 30.12.2023, the cognizance order dated 13.05.2024, or the consequential proceedings in CBI Case No. 04 of 2024, CBI v. Balram Ji Omar and Others, pending before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani J.) 23.09.2025 Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 of 2024, Brijendra Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation- 9 Ashish Naithani J.