MILAN PARKERIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

(2.) Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No.09(A) of 2017-D registered under Sec. 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the director of M/s. Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in criminal conspiracy with a Chinese company in the name of style of M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China as well as the co-accused- public servants being the top officers of Bharat Coking Coal Limited which is a public sector undertaking has committed cheating and also committed the offence punishable under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further alleged that the petitioner represented his company M/s. Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and without any locus standi got his firm participated in the BCCL pre bid meeting in an unauthorized manner even though his said company was not representing any manufacturer at the relevant time and by suppressing the facts and in violation of the terms of the supply order dispatched Road Header machines though his principal, the said M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China without obtaining BCCL approval for the machine drawings indicating position of accessories. It is further alleged that the said company of the petitioner through the principal being M/s. Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, Beijing, China has furnished false inspection report and height of supplied machine was higher than the ordered specification and work inspection report. The firm of the petitioner further failed to ensure guaranteed availability of machines and did not take any step for rectification of operational problem of machines and also did not take any step for extension of DGMS permission for field trial/approval of filed trial. It is also alleged that though the BCCL requested the petitioner and his company to attend the problems encountered by the Road Header machines but the petitioner did not respond to the said request of BCCL and because of the same, they could not be pressed into operation. It is then alleged that the Road Header machines supplied by the petitioner was useless and that the same failed to perform any work of BCCL and the machines were lying idle and were of no use to the BCCL and by such cheating the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused officers of the public sector undertaking namely BCCL, has caused a huge amount of loss of money of several crores of rupees to the public exchequer.