Central Bureau Of Investigation New Delhi vs Party(s) on 07 Oct 2025

Judgment

1. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant – C. S. Bajpai (the then Executive Engineer, MLC Unit, NPCC Ltd., Mirzapur has prayed for quashing of the charge- sheet no. 05 dated 23.12.2009 along with entire criminal proceedings of Court Case No. 3/2014, arising out of Crime No. RC AC-1 2008A0003, under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. CBI/ACU-I, New Delhi and they have also challenged validity of an order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/CBI Court No. 4, Lucknow rejecting the discharge application of the applicants.

2. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on

30.04.2008 in Police Station CBI/ACU(I), New Delhi against - (1) unknown officials of NPCC Ltd. (National Projects Construction Company Ltd.) Delhi & Faridabad; (2) M/s. Unnao Construction Company, 29, Pitamber Nagar, Unnao, U.P. (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘ UCC’ ); (3) M/s. Uma Shankar Sharma, Old Nirmal School, Civil Lines, Unnao, U.P.; and (4) others unknown, stating that the CBI had received an information about corruption in the construction of Meza-Zirgo-Link-Channel under Ban Sagar Canal Project in Unnao Region, U.P.,

3. NPCC Ltd. is a public sector company which is primarily 2 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 responsible to carry out construction of civil works and canal systems etc., awarded tender departments/organizations of Central/State Govts. In the year 2005, the NPCC Ltd. had got three different works from the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for construction of Meza-Zirgo-Link-Channel at the costs of Rs. 31,81,52,777/-, Rs. 4,12,87,992.44 and Rs. 3,62,72,370/- respectively. Certain officials of NPCC Ltd., entered into a criminal conspiracy with two private construction companies namely, UCC

and M/s Uma Shanker Sharma, Unnao, a proprietorship firm in pursuance whereof, they abused their official positions and awarded contracts to them at exorbitant rates. One of these projects for RD 36 km to 47.8 km, 64.6 km to 66.1 km and 66.8 km to 71.15 km was awarded to M/s UCC, Unnao for Rs. 28,20,05,378.50 and two smaller works for RD 30 km to 35 km for Rs. 3,83,78,597.80 and for RD 13 km to 19.5 km for Rs. 3,36,76,105.71 were awarded to M/s Uma Shanker Sharma, Unnao. M/s. UCC further sublet the work awarded to it to another private construction company, namely M/s. Sri Sai Earthworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for Rs. 14,05,28,334.60 i.e. almost at half the amount of the value at which the contract was awarded by NPCC Ltd. to M/s. UCC.

4. The FIR also states that in response to the interest expressed by NPCC Ltd. in various works under Ban Sagar Canal Project, the Chief Engineer, Ban Sagar Project, Department of Irrigation, U.P. Government sent a letter dated 16.07.2005 stating that canal excavation work under the project was to be done and asking NPCC Ltd. to intimate whether it was interested in the work. The communication did not contain any particulars of the work viz. quantity of work, its estimated cost and terms and conditions of the work etc.

5. On 27.07.2005 NPCC Ltd. issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) to 10 agencies inviting their offers for execution of work, along with Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 10 lakhs to be submitted by

08.08.2005 for entering into a pre-tender tie-up. Although the Irrigation Department had not intimated the estimated cost of work to NPCC Ltd., in the notice inviting tender by NPCC the estimated cost of work was mentioned as Rs. 15 Crore. On 06.08.2008, the 3 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 Irrigation Department wrote to NPCC Ltd. that if they were interested in the proposal, they might send their offers in 3 packages. This letter also did not specify the size of packages. Thereafter, the NPCC issued an amendment in the original NIT dated 27.07.2005 stating that offers in three packages of Rs. 20 Crores, Rs. 10 Crores and Rs. 10 Crores could be submitted by 15.08.2005 and the condition related to EMD was also changed so as to provide that it would be obtained from the lowest bidder only. On 09.08.2005, another amendment was issued extending the date of receipt of offers from 15.08.2005 to 16.08.2005 without approval of the competent authority.

6. In response to the aforesaid NIT, only 3 firms, namely M/s UCC, M/s Uma Shanker Sharma and M/s G.S. Tiwari, all of Unnao, submitted their bids. It is alleged that the original NIT dated

25.07.2005 was issued to 10 agencies which included M/s UCC, Unnao but did not include M/s Uma Shankar Sharma, Unnao and M/s. G.S. Tiwari, Unnao. The amendments to NIT were sent to M/s Uma Shankar Sharma, Unnao and M/s. G.S. Tiwari, Unnao. This was allegedly done in furtherance of a conspiracy between the officials of NPCC Ltd., M/s UCC and M/s Uma Shanker Sharma to give a semblance of false competition. There was a striking closeness in the rates offered by the aforesaid tenderers.

7. The tenders submitted by the aforesaid three agencies were opened on 16.08.2005 and on 19.08.2005, the tender committee put up a note recommending award of major work to M/s UCC and the smaller works to M/s Uma Shanker Sharma with 7% margin of NPCC Ltd., without mentioning about the credentials of the aforesaid two agencies.

8. The NPCC Ltd. submitted an offer to the Chief Engineer, Banasagar Project, U.P. by adding a margin of 7% over the quoted rates of the above mentioned two agencies. The rates were accepted by the U.P. Irrigation Department vide letter dated 29.08.2005, through which it was also conveyed for the first time that the total cost of the three works/packages will be Rs. 31.815 Crores, Rs. 3.627 Crores and Rs.

4.128 Crores. 4 A482 No. 6498 of 2025

9. Upon receiving confirmation from the U.P. Irrigation Department, the selected bids were submitted to CMD, NPCC for ex-post facto approval. While approving the proposal on 30.08.2005, CMD, NPCC Ltd., enquired whether the party’ s credentials are such as would make it capable of deal with in increase in the size of package. In case the situation is otherwise, appropriate action should be taken. Although M/s UCC was registered for works up to Rs. 5 Crores only, the Mirzapur unit of NPCC Ltd. forwarded a letter dated 15.08.2005 sent by M/s UCC for enhancing its limit from Rs. 5 Crores to 50 Crores to its Corporate Office at Faridabad through fax on 30.08.2005 along with a recommendation dated 20.08.2005 made by the Unit Officer, Mirzapur. The proposal for award of work to M/s UCC was got cleared from CMD, NPCC Ltd. and for this reason request and recommendation for enhancement of limit, without mentioning that M/s UCC was a new firm, registered only on 19.04.2005 with NPCC Ltd.

10. Thereafter, three Memoranda of Understanding were signed between the NPCC Ltd. and the U.P. Irrigation Department, U.P. on

31.08.2005 inter alia stating that NPCC Ltd. would commence and complete the respective works within the period specified. It did not contain any provision for sub-letting the contract to any other firm. However, NPCC Ltd. sublet the above three works; one entirely to M/s UCC, Unnao for Rs. 28,30,05,378.50 and two smaller ones entirely to M/s Uma Shanker Sharma for Rs. 3,83,78,597.80 and Rs. 3,36,76,105.71. M/s UCC did not have any infrastructure and experience to execute the works and it further sublet the work to M/s Sri Sai Earthworks Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 14,05,28,334.60 vide letter dated 11.09.2005 i.e. at less than half of the rates on which contract had been awarded by NPCC Ltd. to M/s UCC. Therefore, by submitting inflated estimates of project works to Govt. of U.P., by getting the contract at inflated rates, by subletting it to further to Pvt. firms, one of which further sublet it to another firm at a much lower rate, the accused persons abused their position and obtained pecuniary advantage themselves and others causing corresponding wrongful loss to the public exchequer.

11. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted the impugned charge-sheet 5 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 No. 5 dated 23.12.2009 against 9 persons, including the applicant, stating that M/s UCC, Unnao was a partnership firm of co-accused persons Praveen Pratap Singh and Akhilesh Bahadur Singh. They had entered into a criminal conspiracy with certain officials of NPCC Ltd. to obtain the abovementioned works. The Irrigation Department could not have awarded these works to M/s UCC directly through the process of open tenders and, therefore, a conspiracy was hatched for award of work by Irrigation Department to NPCC Ltd. through Memorandum of Understanding and in turn, NPCC Ltd. would pass it on to M/s UCC through pre tender tie-up arrangement by way of limited tender process. Pre-tender tie-up is an arrangement through which NPCC Ltd. invites limited tenders from its registered agencies and executes MOU with the lowest bidder and then submits its own rates to the client after loading its percentage margin over the rates of the tied-up agency and on getting the work from the client, further passes it on to the tied-up agency.

12. The applicant C.S. Bajpai was the then Executive Engineer, MLC Unit, NPCC Ltd., Mirzapur. The charge-sheet states that the investigation has revealed that on 30.08.2005, a letter was received in the Zonal Officer of NPCC Ltd. from the Unit Officer, MLC Unit, Mirzapur. This is a letter dated 15.08.2005 sent by M/s UCC under signatures of co-accused Akhilesh Bahadur Singh addressed to the DGM (C&M), NPCC Ltd., Corporate Office, Faridabad through Unit Officer, MLC Unit, NPCC, Mirzapur wherein M/s UCC claimed that in the previous work of Adwa Meza Link Channel being executed by them, they had executed the work to the tune of Rs. 6 Crores during rainy season in about two months from

10.06.2005 to 15.08.2005. M/s UCC claimed that they would be able to execute the work to the tune of Rs. 4 Crores per month after the rainy season. On the basis of this claim, M/s UCC had requested to enhance their limit to Rs. 50 Crores. The investigation has revealed that this claim of M/s UCC is false. As per the running accounts bills, the maximum work they had executed by 25.08.2005 was worth Rs. 1,80,88,010.98 only. The applicant C.S. Bajpai, who was the Unit Officer, MLC Unit, NPCC Ltd., Mirzapur, made a 6 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 favorable recommendation on this letter purportedly on 20.08.2005 and the letter has been received in the Zonal Officer of NPCC Ltd., Faridabad on 30.08.2005. Actually, this letter had not been received in the office of DGM (C&M) and hence it has not been processed. Thus, the limit of the agency was Rs. 5 Crores only i.e. it had not been upgraded. When the CMD raised the issue of the eligibility of the agency on 30.08.2005, the concerned officers of NPCC Ltd., conspiratorially, arranged the receipt of the said letter by fax through the Unit Office, Mirzapur which was headed by the applicant C.S. Bajpai. C.S. Bajpai had no reason to make his recommendation on the letter on 20.08.2005 and then continue to keep it with himself till

30.08.2005. False recommendation made by the applicant establishes his complicity in commission of the offence.

13. The applicant had sought his discharge by the trial court mainly on the ground that he was a neither a member of the tender committee nor did he have any authority to make any proposal regarding tender or to allot the work. He stated that he had not forwarded the letter dated 15.08.2005 sent by M/s UCC in the official capacity and he had made the recommendation on the aforesaid letter keeping in view the performance of the firm in the works relating to Adwa Meja Link Canal. The recommendation made by the applicant was not wrong in view of the firm's performance. He also contended that no inquiry was conducted regarding his assets which could have revealed whether the applicant had obtained any undue benefit.

14. The trial court has rejected the application for discharge of the applicant by the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 on the ground that the applicant had admitted that he had made a recommendation for enhancing the limit of M/s UCC to Rs. 50 Crores. The evidence collected by CBI has revealed that the limited tender process was adopted to provide undue benefit to a firm of a relative of the then Irrigation Minister and M/s UCC, Unnao was allotted the work although the firm was registered at a recent point of time. M/s UCC sublet the work at half the price and thereby embezzled public money. There is ample evidence against the applicant - C.S. Bajpai that he had recommended enhancement of the limit of M/s UCC to Rs. 50 Crores without making any verification and thereby he also 7 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 participated in the conspiracy to give undue benefit to M/s UCC. There is also evidence to the effect that the letter dated 30.08.2005 had not been received in the office of the DGM and when the CMD raised objection against the competence of the firm, the applicant made the aforesaid letter available from the firm by fax to the Unit Officer, Mirzapur in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, the applicant accused involved himself in the criminal conspiracy and violated the rules for award of contract to the firm and there is sufficient material available for framing charges against him.

15. The applicant C.S. Bajpai has denied the allegations and he has submitted that the letter dated 15.08.2005 written by M/s UCC to the DGM (C&M), NPCC Ltd., Corporate Office, Faridabad was forwarded to its Corporate Office at Faridabad by the applicant C.S. Bajpai and the applicant had made a recommendation on the said letter only on the basis of actual performance of M/s UCC in executing the work of Adwa Meza Link Channel where the applicant was functioning as the Unit Officer. This defense of the applicant cannot be examined either by the trial court while deciding the discharge application or by this Court while examining the validity of the charge-sheet and the order rejecting the discharge application.

16. The applicant has made detailed references to the amount of bills of previous works so as to contend that as per norms, the agency was capable of execution of work worth more than Rs. 5 Crores in fair weather condition whereas the applicant has made recommendation for a capability of Rs. 4 Crores only in fair weather. These contentions also cannot be examined by this Court while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this defense is open to be raised by the applicant before the trial court.

17. The learned counsel for the applicant C.S. Bajpai contended that one of the 38 witnesses namely PW-7 Basant Bihari Pandey has just identified the signatures of the applicants and he has not stated anything adverse against the applicants. In this regard suffice it to state that one of the 38 witnesses has not stated anything against the applicant would not justify his discharge or quashing of the charge- 8 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 sheet against him.

18. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6292 of 2025 has been filed by two co-accused persons namely Anil Vijay and R.C. Sharma. The learned counsel for the applicant has advanced detailed submissions on the basis of facts of case No.6292 of 2025 and he has submitted that as the present case involves points similar to those involved in Case No.6292 of 2025, he has not advanced any detailed submissions in this case.

19. The scope of inquiry while examining the validity of a charge-sheet or deciding an application seeking discharge of an accused person is limited so as to see whether there is sufficient material for trial of the accused person. The correctness of the allegations or the weight of the prosecution evidence is not to be examined at this stage. The facts of the case reveal that there is ample material to show that the Irrigation Department, Government of U.P. required certain works to be conducted. The works were awarded to M/s NPCC Ltd. through limited tender process, without adopting the open tender process- which is the normal practice for awarding government contracts. The trial court has recorded that even after granting sufficient time, the accused persons could not produce any rule or regulation prohibiting adoption of open tender process and justifying the limited tender process for awarding the contracts in question. Prima facie, it appears that the contract was awarded to M/s NPCC Ltd. in an illegal manner. M/s NPCC Ltd. in turn sublet the contact to M/s UCC Ltd. and M/s UCC further sublet the contract to M/s. Sri Sai Earthworks Constructions at about half the contract value thereby causing wrongful the public exchequer. Numerous officers/officials were involved in the entire process.

20. The applicant was the then Executive Engineer, MLC Unit, NPCC Ltd., Mirzapur. The charge sheet states that the investigation has revealed that on 30.08.2005, a letter was received in the Zonal Officer of NPCC Ltd. from the Unit Officer, MLC Unit, Mirzapur. This is a letter dated 15.08.2005 sent by M/s UCC under signatures of co-accused Akhilesh Bahadur Singh addressed to the DGM (C&M), NPCC Ltd., Corporate Office, Faridabad through Unit 9 A482 No. 6498 of 2025 Officer, MLC Unit, NPCC, Mirzapur wherein M/s UCC claimed that in the previous work of Adwa Meza Link Channel, being executed by them, they had executed the work to the tune of Rs. 6 Crores during rainy season, i.e. they had executed the work worth Rs. 6 Crores in about two months i.e. from 10.06.2005 to

15.08.2005. M/s UCC claimed that they would be able to execute the work to the tune of Rs. 4 Crores per month after the rainy season. On the basis of this claim, M/s UCC requested to enhance their limit to Rs. 50 Crores. The investigation has revealed that this claim of M/s UCC is false. The applicant C.S. Bajpai, who was the Unit Officer, MLC Unit, NPCC Ltd., Mirzapur made his favourable recommendation on this letter purportedly on 20.08.2005 and the letter has been received in the Zonal Officer of NPCC Ltd., Faridabad on 30.08.2005. The prosecution claims that this letter had not been received in the office of DGM (C&M) and hence it has not been processed. Thus, the limit of the agency was Rs. 5 Crores only i.e. it had not been upgraded. When the CMD raised the issue of the eligibility of the agency on 30.08.2005, the concerned officers of NPCC Ltd., conspiratorially, arranged the receipt of the said letter through fax through Unit Office, Mirzapur which was headed by the applicant. The applicant had no reason to make his recommendation on the letter on 20.08.2005 and then continue to keep it with himself till 30.08.2005.

21. Without making any further observation which may affect the outcome of the trial, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts clearly make out a case of trial of the applicants.

22. The trial court has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting their discharge application.

23. The application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. October 7, 2025 Pradeep/- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench