- (1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the CBI.
(2.) The petitioners have been apprehending their arrest in R.C. case No. 11(A) of 2004(D) registered under Sections 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner, Swadesh Kumar Chaulya Senior Scientist posted at CMRI, Dhanbad made indents to Standing Purchase Committee for purchasing soil and irrigation kits and the petitioner Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty head of the department of one of the faculties forwarded it to the committee and the purchase committee having been satisfied with the requirement placed the order to M/s. Allied Technology for supplying it and accordingly, it was supplied. However, the instant case was filed with the allegations that the petitioners in connivance with members of Standing Purchase Committee without following the settled norms invited limited tenders and instead of for open tenders and placed the order to M/s. Allied Technology, New Delhi though he was not an authorized dealer of M/s. HACH Company, USA whose authorized dealer was M/s. Orbit Technology Pvt. Ltd. and purchased it on an exorbitant rate putting CMRI to loss to the tune of Rs. 10,18,684/- and the petitioners were made accused putting specific allegation that they had suggested the name of the supplier but it is never that the petitioners did suggest the name of only one supplier rather other suppliers name had also been suggested and it was for the members of the Purchase Standing Committee to take decision in the matter and therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any illegality. Moreover, petitioners innocence in the matter would be reflected from the fact that when the material was not supplied, the petitioner, Dr. M.K. Chakravorty wrote a letter (Annexure 2) to the Purchase and Store Officer, CMRI to go for cancellation of the agreement if the instrument is not supplied within time and that petitioners complicity in the case is also being suspected as the inspection note, regarding inspection of the material supplied has been given by the petitioners but that fact never goes to show the culpability of the petitioners as the material supplied was never found to be of inferior quality.;