- (1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2003 (Special Case No. 24/2003), including the order dated 16/11/2011, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioner and others.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that when a complaint was made to the Vigilance that several irregularities have been committed by ACMO, Dumka, in the matter relating to the purchase of medicines, appliances and instruments for the year 20002001 and 2002, inquiry was made and during inquiry certain irregularities were found in the matter of purchase of those materials and, hence, a first information report was lodged, which was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22/2003 (Spl. Case No. 24/2003) alleging therein that the suppliers including the petitioner has supplied the medicines, implements and appliances etc. on the rate excess than the fixed rate by the Purchase Committee and, thereby, the accused persons in conspiracy with each other, put the State exchequer to a great loss.So far as petitioner is concerned, who happens to be the proprietor of M/s Rahul Distributors, Ranchi, it has been alleged that the petitioner under the supply order dated 20/11/2001, had supplied the medicine, i.e. Cloxacillin Capsules @ Rs. 288/ per hundred capsules, whereas the rate had been fixed by the Purchase Committee @ Rs. 250/ per hundred capsules. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was taken against the petitioner and others vide order dated 16/11/2011, which is under challenge.
(3.) Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Government policy as communicated under Memo No. 280 (5)/Swa. Dated 31/07/2001, ACMO, Dumka, placed order to M/s Rajasthan Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, a Government company for supply of the medicines Cloxacillin. On receipt of the supply order, the company asked this petitioner, the proprietor of M/s Rahul Distributors, Ranchi, the marketing agent of Rajasthan Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, to supply the said medicines at the rate approved by the company, which was supplied by the petitioner. Still, the petitioner is being prosecuted on the allegation that the petitioner did supply the medicines and charged excess rate, whereas it was available at much lowest rate, which allegation is misconceived in view of the policy taken by the then State of Bihar under letter dated 18/02/1999 and, subsequently, by the State of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 280 (5)/Swa. Dated 31/07/2001 stipulating therein that the medicine, which is being manufactured by the Government company is to be purchased directly from the company, which was done in this case and, as such,even if the rate of medicines supplied was found to be excess than the rate fixed by the Purchase Committee, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any illegality as whatever was done, that was done in terms of the Government policy.;