R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) THE order which was recorded on 14.3.2011 reads as follows. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that an F.I.R was lodged on the allegation that the contractor who was given contract to construct Hata -Chaibasa Road never constructed the road, in accordance with specification and thereby the contractor in connivance with the Engineers misappropriated a sum of Rs. Sixty Three Lacs, but when enquiry was made by the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, State of Jharkhand Ranchi, at the instance of the Government, the allegation was found to be not true. Not only that subsequently at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, chaibasa, when two agencies namely, one BIT and other Kolkata Based Agency made inquiry, they also did not find any wrong with the construction of the road rather according to the report, the road was constructed absolutely in accordance with specification and under this situation, the Petitioner who is a representative of the Contractor has never committed any offence so far it relates to offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) PURSUANT to that order part of the case diary which had not been made available earlier has been made available to learned Counsel appearing for the State. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the case diary refers to the reports submitted by the two agencies whereby both the agency did not find any irregularity in the matter of the construction of the road.
(3.) HOWEVER , Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the State points it out that perhaps the instant case has been referred to the C.B.I for fresh investigation.;