- (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.9.2012 passed in Vigilance P.S. case no.30 of 1999 (Special Case No.7 of 1999) whereby the court refused to accept final form whereunder the Investigating Officer on reinvestigation of the case had exonerated the petitioner from accusation. At the same time, the order dated 5.5.2001 has also been sought to be quashed whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 353, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and also under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been taken against the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.9.1999 the informant visited the premises of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. for its inspection, during which when it was found that theft of electric energy is being committed in large scale, he informed it to Head office of the Board. Upon which a team headed by this petitioner was constituted for inspection. During inspection it was found that two furnaces capacity of which was 4.128 M.T and 4.205 M.T were being used though the consumer had declared the capacity of both furnaces as 6 M.T. Thereby the consumer was found using excess load illegally of 1502.5 K.V.A than the sanctioned load of 2940 K.V.A. Further three transformers were found there capacity of which had been shown as 2000 K.V.A, 2000 K.V.A and 400 K.V.A but in fact, it were of the capacities of 4102 K.V.A , 3338 K.V.A and 935 K.V.A. Thus, total capacity comes to 5583 K.V.A over which sanctioned load should have been of 4443 Kilo Watt but it was only 2940 K.V.A.
(2.) FURTHER it was found that on 15.1.1998 an application was filed by the consumer to increase the sanctioned load from 1600 K.V.A to 2940 K.V.A upon which the then Superintending Engineer, Y.P.Singh made recommendation on 24.3.1998 for enhancement. Accordingly, the then General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer increased it for three months. But the said Y.P.Singh did not get an agreement executed even after lapse of 17 months. However, successor of Y.P.Singh, the informant executed the agreement on 7.9.2009. Thus, it has been alleged that role of Mr.Y.P.Singh appears to be suspicious. In these manners, the consumer had been committing theft of electricity on large scale continuously. On such allegation, a case was lodged which was registered as Vigilance P.S. case no.30 of 1999 under Sections 120B, 201, 353, 379, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act as well as under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr.Y.P.Singh, the then Electrical Superintending Engineer and Ram Swaroop Bhartia and Rajesh Kumar Bhartia of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. After investigation, the Vigilance submitted charge sheet on 31.1.2000 against Rajesh Kumar Bhartia, Managing Director of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd. However, the case was kept open for investigation relating to other accused. In course of time, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted wherein this petitioner, at whose instance, raid had been laid in the premises of M/s. Spriha Steel Pvt. Ltd., was made accused along with others whereas Y.P.Singh, who was named accused was exonerated on the ground that Y.P.Singh, the then Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi could not get the agreement executed with the consumer nearly for 17 months due to the reason of extension of time of execution of the agreement by the petitioner without there being any recommendation of his subordinate and thereby Y.P.Singh is not responsible for it. This accusation was made on the basis of a letter dated 31.12.1998 said to have been written by Y.P.Singh to this petitioner whereby Y.P.Singh had written to this petitioner for not extending the date of execution of the agreement.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner when the petitioner came to know about it, he made representation before the Director General, Cabinet Vigilance Department, BSEB Cell, Patna requesting therein to investigate the matter on the point of the genuinity of that letter. At the same time, the petitioner also made representation before the Vigilance Commissioner, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna which did find favour and accordingly, Investigating Officer filed an application before the Special Judge allowing him to go for further investigation as certain new facts have come to light. However, that prayer was rejected on the ground that the facts which are said to have come to light have not been mentioned. However, again an application was filed stating therein about the facts which got transpired later on. This time, the prayer was allowed. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer took up the matter for further investigation/reinvestigation. On making thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer came to conclusion that there has been absolutely no material showing his culpability in any manner in the alleged offence and accordingly, final form was submitted exonerating the petitioner from accusation. In spite of it learned Special Judge did not accept the final form which has given cause of action to the petitioner for filing this application as prayer which was made was taken to be as that of discharge.;