Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 02 of 2011 (Special Case No. 02 of 2011), including the order dated 26.8.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offenses punishable under Ss. 109, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 13(2) read with Ss. 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner.
(2.) Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution as made out by the Vigilance needs to be taken notice of which is as follows: - - "Jharkhand State Electricity Board issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for undertaking work under the Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme (for short APDRP) under Package 'D' for Jamshedpur Town stipulating therein that the work would be targeted one which requires to be completed within time schedule and that the price quoted by the bidder shall not be subjected to variation on any account. Making it further clear that no escalation in prices shall be admissible on any account to the bidder. Same clauses were reiterated when the work orders were issued to M/s. Ramji Power Company Limited (for short M/s. RPCL) and even in the agreement entered into in between the JSEB and M/s. RPCL they were part of the terms and conditions. M/s. RPCL could not execute the work by the due date i.e. 26.9.2005. However, time was extended from 26.9.2005 to 31.7.2007 without putting any clause for escalation of price but with imposition of liquidated damages (L.D.). M/s. RPCL agreed to that proposal and assured that the work will be completed within extended time and it will not be going for any arbitration. When it was found that M/s. RPCL contrary to its promise did not even start the work by 31.7.2007, the then Chairman, JSEB directed the Chief Engineer, APDRP to put up agenda for termination of contract of M/s. RPCL in the next meeting of the Board of JSEB. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, APDRP put up the agenda to the then Member (Technical), JSEB, who in connivance with the other accused held back the concerned file till the transfer of the then Chairman, JSEB. Thereupon Mr. P.K. Sinha, the then Electrical Executive Engineer, APDRP, put note in the file for appointment of Arbitrator and for waiver of penalty after having approval of the Chairman. Thereupon, the Arbitrator was appointed who gave award. Pursuant to that, payments were made to the contractor -M/s. RPCL. Thereupon, when it was detected that grave financial irregularities have been committed in making payments to M/s. RPCL by adopting malpractices by the officers of the Board, FIR was lodged with the Vigilance alleging therein that the time extended upto July, 2007 had been granted to M/s. RPCL but with stipulation that there should be no price escalation and that was subjected to imposition of L.D. In spite of that, when it was found that M/s. RPCL has even not started the work, the then Chairman, JSEB asked the concerned officers to place the agenda in the next meeting of the Board for termination of contract but the officers of the Board having hatched conspiracy, never placed the agenda before the Board for termination of contract rather Mr. P.K. Sinha, Electrical Executive Engineer, APDRP, placed the file for appointment of an Arbitrator, waiver of penalty and extension of time. Thereupon, at the behest of said P.K. Sinha and other officers of the Board including the Director of Finance, an Arbitrator was appointed who gave award in favour of M/s. RPCL and pursuant to that, the Board had to pay a sum of Rs. 10.87 Crores. That amount also included the amount on account of price variation but that was never the subject matter of dispute and, therefore, the Authority of the Board should have contested the award but the Authority of the Board without examining the merit of the award placed the file for approval of the award of the sole Arbitrator and then the then Chief Engineer, APDRP without examining the consequences of the award recommended for its approval by the Board. It has further been alleged that Mr. P.K. Sinha with malafide intention, deliberately suppressed the fact that implementation of award will have financial impact of additional Rs. 11 Crores which amount is not available for making payment to the contractor and that additional fund could be arranged only after approval of the Ministry of Power, Government of India. Further allegation is that the file was moved for making payments of bill amounting to Rs. 7,89,84,826/ - net value of Rs. 4,89,24,788/ - which was paid after the order was passed by the Finance Controller -III though he had no authority to pass the order for making payment of a sum of Rs. Three Crores or above, rather the authority was either lying with the Member Finance or the Chairman, JSEB. Likewise payment of Rs. 2,75,43,156/ - towards price variation was made from the account of project cost which is gross financial irregularities as that amount could have been paid only after making the fund available. In the last, it has been alleged that the total cost of the project was Rs. 33.13 Crores. As against that, the work done including the cost of materials were worth Rs. 19,85,08,406/ - but the contractor was paid a sum of Rs. 28,90,95,479/ - and thereby a sum of Rs. 9,05,87,073/ - has been paid in excess. The said FIR was lodged against number of officers of JSEB including this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was the Finance Controller."
(3.) Upon the matter was taken up for investigation, the Investigating Officer did find culpability on the part of the petitioner and hence submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner. Thereupon, the court below took cognizance of the offenses punishable under Ss. 109, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 13(2) read with Ss. 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is under challenge.;