- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. Heard Sri J. J. Munir, Advocate for the applicant and Sri Patahjali Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate for Opp. Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) DR. Lalit Verma, a Member of Indian Administrative Service was posted in the year 1989 as Chief Development Officer, Gorakhpur. He has come to this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the First Information Report, lodged against him at Police Station Cantt. District Gorakhpur. This report was lodged under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 506 I. P. C. by Opp. Party No. 2 Onkar Nath Pandey, Inspector, U. P. Vigilance Department, Uttar Pradesh pursuant to an order dated 28-8-1997 of the State Government. The basis of the First Information Report, was a complaint by Opp. Party No. 4, K. K. Kamani, who owned a firm under the name and style of M/s Rajendra Tubes Ltd. , Kanpur in which he alleged that in the year 1989, the applicant was a member of the Purchase Committee, formed for various purchase programmes for the development of the District. The committee was headed by the District Magistrate. The Committee had invited quotations from various firms for the supply of the pipe, the list of which was finalized by the purchase committee, in pursuance of which, the orders were placed to different firms for the supply of the pipes.
(3.) THE complainant alleged that it was clandestinely agreed between him and Opp. Party No. 4 that the applicant will give supply of an order of 85000 Mtrs. of pipe on a profitable rate to Opp. Party No. 4 and in turn, he had given an amount of Rs. 3 lacs in 30 instalments, Rs. 10,000/- a day for 30 days, between 16-9-1989 to 27-10-1989 to the applicant. In his income tax assessment filed for the year 1990-91 before the Income Tax Officer Ward (2), Kanpur the complainant had claimed this notice amount as an expenditure on basis of which a show cause notice (Annexure - A 2) was sent for query to the applicant by the Income Tax Department. The applicant, in his reply (Annexure- A 3) sent to the Income Tax Officer denied the receipt of these payments. The Income Tax Officer vide order dated 17-3-1993 passed by him rejected the claim of the Opp. Party No. 4 (complainant), holding it as erroneous, as there being, no iota of evidence in support of the alleged payment. An appeal filed against this order by Opp. Party No. 4, could not also fructify.;