- (1.) THE present petitions have been filed by the petitioner, who is facing the trial U/ss 409, 120-B I. P. C. read with Sec tion 13 (l) (c) (d) (ii) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ II Fast Track Court, Nainital.
(2.) AS both the petitions have been filed challenging the charge sheet No. 03/ 2002 and charge sheet No. 02/2002, and the facts involved in both the petitions are materially similar, therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer in Mechanical Equipments and Store, Khand-1, Dehradun, a unit of Irrigation Department. The duty of the said Division was to supply raw ma terial, viz. cement and steel etc. to all the segments of the department, who were handling different projects in con nection with Yamuna Valley Project at different places. The petitioner was to procure raw material from different firms, manufacturers or their consignee agents or C and F agents to meet the above requirement. The petitioner used to procure cement from two sources- (a) M/s Maihar Cement Limited, Satna, a concern of Birla Group and (b) U. P. Rajkiya Cement Nigam. The allegations made in the first information report are that the petitioner R. K. Jain was posted in Mechanical Equipment Store Khand-1 as Executive Engineer from 1-1-94 to 28-5-1998 and he made payment to Maihar Cement, Satna for supply of cement through its consignee agent M/s Sri Trader (India) Chhabra Complex, Saharanpur from time to time. On 23-5-1998 while going on transfer Sri. R. K. Jain, the applicant made payment of Rs. 67,74,000/- as advance payment through four bank drafts to M/s Sri Trader (India), the con signee agent of M/s Maihar Cement. He has supplied to the department 3600 bags of cement after 23-5-1998, i. e. af ter this advance payment was received. Request was made to M/s Maihar Ce ment to stop the supply of the cement during the rainy season. Return of the entire payment made in advance was also demanded from it by Sri B. B. L. Mittal on the ground that whenever there will be a requirement of cement, fresh demand and payment for that shall be made by the department.
(3.) IT is further alleged in the first information report that on 26-10-1988 M/ s Maihar Cement vide its letter informed the department that Sri Pal, owner of M/ s Sri Trader (India), its consignee had committed fraud as he got printed let ter pad of the company, without taking the company into confidence, in collu sion with the Officers of the department used said pad in submitting quotation and the proforma bills and in receiving the advance payments. M/s Maihar Ce ment denied knowledge of any order from the department or of any transac tion. The Maihar Cement advised the department to prosecute him U/ss 420,467s471 I. P. C. IT is further alleged therein that from 1-11-1998 the agency of the said consignee agent has been cancelled by the company. IT also de clined to own any responsibility for the payment made to Sri Pal by the depart ment to make any supply of cement against such payment. On the basis of the aforesaid let ter Sri B. B. L. Mittal lodged the first in formation report against Sri Pal and the applicant U/ss 13 (1 ) (c) (d) (ii) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and LV Ss 420, 468,471 I. P. C. which is the sub ject matter of charge sheet no. 03/2002.;