- (1.) THE petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision for quashment of the order impugned dated 6.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in CBI, Ranchi Case No. 8(A)/2005 whereby and whereunder his petition for discharge was rejected. The learned Special Judge, had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 12013 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 ) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner admitted having agitated the matter earlier before this Court for quashment of his criminal proceeding in the said CBI, Ranchi Case No. 8(A)/2005 in Cr. M.P. No. 1429 of 2006 which was dismissed by according liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short as narrated in the self -statement of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACBI Ranchi addressed to Spl. Judge, Ranchi was that the petitioner Mahesh Kumar Thapar @ M.K. Thapar being the Director (T) CMD, CCL, Ranchi by entering into criminal conspiracy with Sri. S.K. Basu, Director (Finance), Shri P.V.L.N. Prasad, the then Chief General Manager and in league with M/s Rungta Project Limited placed orders for transportation of 1.5 lakhs M.T. coal from Jharkhand Project of Hazaribagh dishonestly and fraudulently to Rajrappa Washery of CCL at an exorbitant rate without ensuring competitive rate and also ignoring the prevalent rate of transportation causing loss to the extent of Rs.24. 781akhs to the CCL. After registration of C.B.I. case the investigation was carried out but, according to the learned counsel, no criminal case was made out against the petitioner as per the evidence collected during investigation yet, by misinterpreting the evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the CBI shown to have made out criminal case against the petitioner for the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and misconduct.
(3.) THE admitted case was that during the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Director (T) CMD, CCL, Ranchi and as such he was a public servant within the definition under Section 2(c)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 21 of IPC which called for appropriate sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned counsel submitted.;