AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. C.B.I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 1(A) of 2003(D) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. At the same time, the order under which sanction for prosecution has been granted is also under challenge. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by the C.V.O. with the C.B.I., alleging therein that during April, 1999 to June, 1999, officials of the CMRI, Dhanbad in connivance with each other and also with some general order supplier purchased scientific equipments, filter papers, digital burettes and chemicals at highly inflated rate on 32 limited tender basis either by splitting the requirement or by keeping the estimated cost within Rs. 2 lakhs and thereby they caused wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs to CMRI, Dhanbad.

(3.) Purchases at CMRI are governed by Rationalized Purchase Procedure (RPP) and Central Financial Rules. According to which, data base is to be maintained containing information pertaining to cost, brand, specification and sources of supply of the items to be procured. All indents were required to have full information such as quantity of the materials to be purchased, present stock position, information about rate contract already entered into with various Government agencies and that purchase orders were not to be split up. Limited tender was to be resorted to where estimated cost of the items was less than Rs. 2 lakhs but the accused persons the then Director, Finance and Accounts Officer, members of the Standing Purchase Committee to which the petitioner is one of the members in connivance with the suppliers got the process of purchase initiated upon false, incomplete and split up indents which were vetted in most faulty manner by the members of the Standing Purchase Committee and purchase orders were placed on the firms of the accused persons at inflated rates on limited tender basis in most of the cases.