- (1.) HEARD both sides at length.
(2.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.7.2007 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 15(A)/ 94R, by which the prayer for discharge preferred by petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the entire prosecution case was lodged with vendetta after retirement of the petitioner from Bokaro Steel Ltd. only because he happened to be the General Manager (Finance) and Accounts during the period 1992 -93, the financial year in which some DAR pads were purchased.
(3.) MR . Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has no role in the purchase of the said pads at exorbitant rate. However after retirement in 1994 he has been Implicated in this case along with other co -accused A.C. Roy, the Manager, Accounts (Administration) just to help other co -accused, the supplier firms. In this context, my attention was drawn towards FIR as well as the impugned order.;