R.N.VERMA, J. - (1.) Invoking the inherent power of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short "the Code") the two petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 25.09.2012 passed by the Special Judge ( Vigilance) Ranchi in Special Case no. 28 of 1989 arising out of Khunti P.S.Case no. 57 of 1989.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, in short, is that at the instance of the Officer -in -Charge, Khunti Police Station, Khunti P.S. Case no. 57 of 1989 was instituted on 30.05.1989 under sections 419, 420,465,467,468,409,120(B) of the Indan Penal Code and section 7/13(c)(1 -b)15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the allegation that 300 bags of cement, total value of Rs. 10,000/ - was seized from a truck by the Officer -in -Charge, Khunti Police Station and on inquiry, it came in the light that the said cement was being removed towards Ranchi town by one Rajendra Prasad Singh, a man of contractor P.K.Mukherjee, instead of construction site. The said Contractor was assigned the work of construction of bridge over the river Banail. It is alleged that cement was obtained from the REO Department for construction of said bridge, but it was subsequently sold to the said Rajendra Prasad Singh at the rate of Rs.60/ - per bag and that cement was issued by the godown keeper of the said Department, on a slip signed by its Junior Engineer. On the basis of enquiry from one Girdhari Mandal, Junior Engineer, Headquarter, REO, the aforesaid case was lodged against the petitioners, the contractor, Rajendra Prasad Singh and the truck driver. Whereafter the statement of Girdhari Mandal, Junior Engineer was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted the charge -sheet almost on completion of 23 years of lodging of the F.I.R. Learned court below being satisfied with sufficiency of materials took cognizance of offence vide order dated 25.09.2012 and proceeded with the case. Hence, this criminal Misc. Petition.
(3.) After filing of this case, a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners, was filed disclosing that in the light of Clause 1.20 of the Agreement between the Department and the Contractor double of the price of the cement was later on deducted from the bills of the contractor.;