PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C), the peti­tioners have sought quashing of the pro­ceedings of Criminal Case No. 1504 of 2002; State v. V.M. Das, pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), De-hradun.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners (accused) were the suppliers of material to M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Cor­poration Ltd. (for short ONGC). The prose­cution case is that between the years 1985-89 under contract/ tender No. MATOP/ IMP-IIIrd/ 45 (R)/ 85 dated 20th of August 1986, certain Production Tubing alongwith PUP joints and crossover substi­tutes were to be supplied to ONGC after the same are purchased from A.O.W.S.R. Stoffner, Austria. The allegations against the petitioners are that sub-standard items were supplied by the petitioners and that too at wrong Port. It appears that the ONGC got the matter investigated through Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBT), who submitted charge sheet against the petitioners in the year 1997. In the year 2003/ 2006, charge was framed against the accused/ petitioner No. 1 V.M. Das.
(3.) IT is pleaded on behalf of the peti­tioners that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are punishable under section 420, 468 and 471 (read with section 468 of I.P.C.). All the three offences are punishable with maxi­mum imprisonment for a period of seven years, as such, provisions contained in (Chapter XXI-A, as inserted vide Act No. 2 of 2006 w.e.f. 5.7.2006) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are applicable to the present case. An application was moved on 15.12.2009 (during pendency of this petition) by the petitioners for 'plea bargaining' before the Trial Court. The Trial Court heard the prosecuting agency (CBI) and also the ONGC (victim). Both CBI and ONGC endorsed their no objection to 'plea bargaining' sought by the accused/ petitioners. However, the Magistrate vide its order dated 10.3.2010 (copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 with the affidavit, filed with Misc. Application No. 244 of 2010, in this petition) rejected the applica­tion on two grounds, namely (i) the peti­tioner has not filed affidavit that he is not a previous convict and, (ii) that compensa­tion has not been fixed. Both these objec­tions were not raised either by the prose­cuting agency or by the victim.;