D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against him before the court below, arising out of FIR vide Khunti P.S. Case No. 62 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 333 of 1998, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the continuation of the proceeding on the following grounds :- (i) That the very cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is bad in law and has been passed without application of judicial mind. (ii) That for the same charge and on the same allegations, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which, after thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge is not proved against the petitioner and therefore had exonerated the petitioner from the charge. (iii) That the investigation of the case which was registered way back on 13.08.1998, did not conclude even after more than 12 years infringing thereby the fundamental right of the petitioner for speedy investigation and trial. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would read out the contents of the FIR and explain that as per the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner in his capacity of Executive Engineer, had knowingly accepted forged Bank Guarantees from the co-accused contractor and on the basis of such Bank Guarantees, the contractor had managed not only to obtain the contract job but also to withdraw substantial amount of money. Learned counsel explains that while the petitioner was posted as the Executive Engineer at Khunti, a tender was invited by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi vide No. 04/95-96 of Package No. 5. The estimated value of the tender was Rs. 84.25 lakhs. The bid security was in the shape of Bank Guarantee to be valid for 45 days beyond the validity of bid as specified in the bidding document. The tender was finalized in the name of M/s. Uma Engineering Company. The contractor, who submitted bid security worth Rs. 1.65 lakhs in the shape of Bank Guarantees to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi, was directed by the Chief Engineer to contact the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Khunti for signing an agreement, after furnishing the performance security worth Rs. 6,82,177/- in the shape of Bank Guarantee as per the condition in the tender document. Learned counsel adds further that on submission of the Bank Guarantee by the contractor, the petitioner had forwarded the same to the Canara Bank to which the Bank Guarantee was drawn and only after being informed by the Bank that the Bank Guarantee was genuine, did the petitioner proceed to execute an agreement with the contractor as per the authority vested in him. Subsequently, the contractor sought for replacement of the Bank Guarantee by fresh similar Bank Guarantees and on each occasion the petitioner had obtained the certificate of the Bank regarding the genuineness of the Bank Guarantees. It was only after verification of the Bank Guarantee and being informed of the same being genuine, did the petitioner direct the Assistant Engineer to prepare the bill for mobilization advance in favour of the contractor and till June 1997 while the petitioner was posted at the station, the contractor could draw the amount of 60% of the work completed. Later, in July, 1997 the petitioner was transferred from the post of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Khunti to Mohania Tubewell Division and in course of time he retired from service in 1999. Learned counsel explains further that the aforesaid entire facts and circumstances including the certificates issued by the concerned bank confirming the genuineness of the Bank Guarantees supplied by the contractor, were considered by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and only after being thoroughly satisfied that the petitioner was in no way at fault, did the Enquiry Officer record his finding that the charge of conniving with the contractor in the submission of the fake and forged Bank Guarantees was not proved against him. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and no further action was therefore taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, the allegation that the petitioner had connived with the contractor in submission of the fake Bank Guarantees is a vague and omnibus statement without considering the fact that the bank on which the Bank Guarantees were drawn, had issued certificates confirming that the Bank Guarantees were genuine. Learned counsel adds that 3 under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be accused of having connived with the contractor in the matter of submission of any fake Bank Guarantee. Learned counsel adds that furthermore, the fact that though the case was instituted way back in 1998 and yet, investigation could not be concluded beyond more than 12 years prior to the date of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, in itself, would confirm that the petitioner's available constitutional right of speedy investigation and trial has been infringed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel refers to and relies upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2008 (68) AIC 93 (SC)=2008 (62) ACC 650 (SC)=AIR 2008 SC 3077.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State argues that the grounds advanced by the petitioner relating to the facts of the case are such as could possibly be appreciated only by the trial court because the same happen to be the grounds of defence taken by the petitioner against the charge for which he is sought to be prosecuted. Learned counsel however concedes that as per instructions received, though the investigation had commenced after institution of the case in February, 1998, but the investigation could not conclude even after more than 12 years and it was recently n 01.06.2010, that the investigation was concluded and charge-sheet submitted.;