- (1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner assails the orders dated 15th November, 2007 and 27th November, 2007 whereby the Petitioner was directed to be charged and consequently a charge was framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 120B/420/471/468 IPC and Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the PC Act).
(2.) THE Petitioner had first filed a revision petition before this Court which was dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in Anur Kumar Jain vs. CBI, 178 (2011) DLT 501 wherein it was held that no revision against an order of framing charge by the learned Special Judge under PC Act was maintainable. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present petition. The case of the Petitioner in short is that charge has been framed against the Petitioner without any basis, there being no material against him. The prosecution witnesses have not clarified the distinction in the work of Junior Engineer (Site) and Junior Engineer (Plant). The Petitioner being JE (Site) was only responsible for execution of work at site and not at the plant where the bitumen was received and the ready mix was prepared. There is no allegation that the work at the site was not executed or there was any error in the execution of the work. The charge -sheet in order to confuse the two, in Para 15 & 16 of the charge -sheet clubs the JEs of both the Plant and Site thus creating confusion. Reliance is placed on Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar and Ors AIR 1979 SC 366; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jatinder Bhimraj Bijja AIR 1990 SC 1962, Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 564 and Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs. The State 2007 (2) JCC 1489. The Court may though not appreciate the evidence but has to sift the material against each accused at that stage. Countering the arguments against the learned counsel for the CBI relying upon Satish Mehra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2013 Crl.LJ 411 SC it is stated that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 can quash the proceedings even at an advanced stage of trial. It is further stated that the Petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay in disposal of the petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the CBI at the outset has relied upon the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 351 to contend that since the trial is at the fag end and defence evidence is in progress, this Court will not interrupt the proceedings and decide the present petition. Learned counsel for the CBI points out towards the statement of PW17 Deepak Mukhopadhyay wherein it is stated that the mix of bitumen mecadum is manufactured in the hot mix plant of the contractor and then carried to the site of the work by tippers. The mix is then laid on the road by mechanical pavers. Mr. Sharma further relying upon the statement of PW17 states that JE is responsible for 100% check of the contractor's work and measurement in the MB. He states that since in the statement of PW17 no distinction has been carried out between the work of JE (Plant) and JE (Site), thus JE (Site) is also responsible for the measurement in the MB book or the Contractor's book.;