Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2023Cr.M.P./1411/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand considered an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging forgery and corruption. The petitioner argued he lacked knowledge and specific role since he became Managing Director after the alleged forgery. The court held that prima facie materials existed and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the criminal proceedings and order taking cognizance is dismissed. Trial proceeds.

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 1411 of 2009

¶5

----

¶6

Rajeev Kumar Singh @ Rajeev Kumar, son of Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of Kumar Nivas, Bright Lane, Kokar, P.O. and P.S. Sadare, District- Ranchi

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand, through C.B.I. .... Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner :-	--- Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate Mr. Mohit Mukul, Advocate
For the C.B.I :-	Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
For Intervenor(RITES Ltd):-	Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate ----

¶12

10 /15.06.2023 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Vikash Pandey, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent C.B.I. and the intervenor/ informant –RITES Ltd. as the application filed by the intervenor was allowed by the order dated 28.6.2013 in I.A. No.620 of 2010, respectively.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C B.D 01/2005/E0006 for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC including the order taking cognizance dated 5.12.2008, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶14

The case was registered by the C.B.I on the information by RITES Ltd alleging that the petitioner has not filed any other application for the same self relief earlier before this Hon'ble Court or any other court. That the case of the prosecution in narrow compass is that one Mr. M.D. Jhoshi, Joint Manager, Vigilance, informed the D.I.G. of Police, C.B.I. that Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) awarded the work of Rural Electrification in favor of RITES Ltd. at a total cost of Rs.300/- Crores vide Agreement No. 01/RE/JSEB/03-04 to 10/RE/JSEB/03-04. RITES Ltd., in turn, sub-contracted the work to M/s. Ramjee Power Construction Ltd.,

¶15

¶16

Kumar Niwas, Bright Lane, Koker, Ranchi (RPCL) at Rs.276.5 Crores vide Agreement Nos. 01/ RE/RITES/ 03-04 to 10/ RE/ JEITES/ 03-04. It is further alleged in the FIR that in terms of the provision of agreement executed between the RITES Ltd. and M/s. RPCL bank guarantees were required to be submitted by M/s. RPCL on account of security deposit at the rate of 5% of Rs.277.5 Crores which comes to the tune of Rs.13.875 Crores of contract amount in the form of Bank Guarantee at the time of signing of agreement. The M/s. RPCL submitted the bank guarantee of Rs.15,91,02,019/- to RITES Ltd. as cover for security deposit and M/s. RPCL also submitted bank guarantee for Rs.16,80,48,772/- to RITES Ltd. as cover for mobilization advance. All the aforesaid bank guarantee were submitted by Sri A.K. Singh, CMD of M/s. RPCL & Sri D. K. Das, Construction manager, RPCL. The further case of the prosecution is that upon receipt of bank guarantees from M/s. RPCL, confirmation was obtained by RITES Ltd. from Bank of India who issue the said bank guarantees vide their various letters of confirmations. It is further alleged that receipt of confirmation of Bank of India the aforesaid Bank guarantee were issued by them and the net value of mobilization advance which come to the tune of Rs.16.8 Crores was paid to M/s. RPCL. On being checked with Bank of India, Club Side, Ranchi, regarding error in date in one of the Bank guarantee i.e. CBS: BG:/ 04-05: 30/25, it has been informed by the Bank that the said Bank guarantee has already been surrendered by M/s. RPCL and cancelled on 13.09.2004 and it was done without seeking any advise from RITES Ltd., the beneficiary of guarantee.

¶17

It is further alleged in the FIR that verification has been made regarding all the 27 Bank guarantee from Bank of India, Club Side Branch, Ranchi by sending them copies of the Bank guarantees and then it was discovered that all the bank guarantees available with RITES Ltd.

¶18

¶19

and the signature of Bank Officer on the Bank Guarantees appears to be forged and 22 Bank guarantees out of these were already cancelled by M/s. RPCL. It is also alleged in the FIR that Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Construction Manager and Sri A.K. Singh, CMD of M/s. RPCL dishonestly and fraudulently submitted 27 forged bank guarantees to obtain mobilization advance of Rs.16.8 Crores from RITES Ltd. and 22 Bank guarantees were got cancelled connivance with official of Bank of India, Club Side, Ranchi leaving RITES Ltd. without cover against the mobilization advance of Rs.16.8 Crores paid by RITES Ltd. to M/s. RPCL. Of Officials Bank of India fraudulently and deliberately did not inform RITES Ltd. that it had cancelled 22 Bank guarantees. The RITES Ltd, therefore, left without cover against security deposit as well as mobilization advance due to fraudulent acts of A.K. Singh, CMD, and Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Construction Manager of M/s. RPCL and officials of Bank of India, Club Side, Ranchi and thereby they caused lost to RITES Ltd. to the tune of Rs.32.7 Crores due to forged Bank guarantees submitted by M/s. RPCL as cover for security deposit and for obtaining mobilization advance from RITES Ltd. On the basis in above, the instant case has been registered under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶20

Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court to several paragraphs of the charge sheet annexed with the petition and submits that role of this petitioner who happened to be son of Ashok Kumar Singh who was Managing Director of Ramjee Power Construction Ltd has not come and inspite of that the CBI has submitted charge sheet against this petitioner. He submits that is why this petitioner has come forward for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding so far as allegation against him is concerned. He further

¶21

¶22

submits that the investigating agency has failed to gather the materials upon which the charge has been leveled against the petitioner. He further submits that in the FIR Ashok Kumar Singh the then Managing Director of Ramjee Power Construction Ltd and Dilip Kumar Das have also been made accused. He further submits that so far Dilip Kumar Das is concerned he was absolved in the charge sheet on the ground that no offence was found during investigation that shows that Dilip Kumar Das, Construction Manager, M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. had the knowledge that the Bank Guarantees that were handed over by him in the office of M/s RITES Limited on behalf of the M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd were forged. He submits that once the allegation made against Dilip Kumar Das was found untrue, the petitioner who happened to be son of Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh the then Director of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd the vicarious liability cannot be fastened under the I.P.C. upon him. He submits that only allegation against this petitioner is that he had signed as Director four letters requesting for cancellation of genuine bank guarantees on the basis of which the bank has cancelled the genuine bank guarantee. He submits that the petitioner has got no role and in that view of the matter, entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance so far as this petitioner is concerned may kindly be quashed. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , particularly,

¶23

paragraph no.26 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶24

“ 26. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

¶25

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

¶26

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

¶27

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or

¶28

¶29

manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

¶30

Relying on that judgment Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said proposition is well settled so far invoking section 482 Cr.P.C is concerned and in view of that ratio, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondent C.B.I took the Court to several paragraphs of the charge sheet annexed with the petition. He submits that in the investigation it was found by M/s RITES Limited on verification at later stage from the bank that all the 27 bank guarantees available with the M/s RITES Limited were forged and 22 bank guarantees out of same had been got cancelled by M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. He submits that this petitioner has become Managing Director of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd on 27.07.2005. The agreements were executed between M/s RITES and Jharkhand State Electricity Board and M/s RITES Limited sub-contracted the aforesaid work at the cost of Rs.2,78,20,40,357=00 to M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd for which contracts were entered into. He submits that in the paragraph no.5 of the charge sheet the terms of the contract has been displayed. The bank guarantee issued by M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd got issued bank guarantee and numbers of bank guarantees have been disclosed in paragraph no.6 of the charge sheet. He submits that two original sets of bank guarantees favouring M/s RITES Limited were prepared by M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd on non-judicial stamp papers purchased in the name of Bank of India, Ranchi in single lot. One original was got signed from Bank of India, Club side Branch, Ranchi and on the second original signatures of officers of the bank were forged. The bank guarantees containing genuine signatures of bank officials were retained by M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd and second original bank

¶32

¶33

guarantees containing forged signatures of officers of Bank of India, Club side Branch Ranchi namely Shri Golak Chandra Biswas Deputy Chief Manager (Administration and Shri Jayant Banerjee, Deputy Chief Manager (Credit) were submitted to M/s RITES Limited for getting executed contract agreements in favour of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd for the work of rural electrification that was awarded by Jharkhand State Electricity Board to M/s RITES Limited. By way of elaborately placing the materials in the charge sheet he submits that the second original signatures of the officials of the bank were forged and he submits that the role of the petitioner was found at paragraph no.9 of the charge sheet. He further submits that letter dated 27.10.2004 of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd requesting cancellation of genuine bank guarantee mentioned at serial no.17 to 22 signed by Rajiv Kumar Singh, Director of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. He further submits that it has come in the charge sheet that Sri Ashok Kumar Singh and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh knew fully well that the mobilization advance was outstanding and the security deposit bank guarantee were to remain valid for one year, however, fraudulently they have got cancelled the genuine bank guarantee. On these grounds he submits that this is not the stage to quash the entire criminal proceeding when the materials have come in the charge sheet against the petitioner also.

¶34

Mr. Vikash Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor-RITES Limited submits that the argument advanced by the C.B.I. fully support the charge sheet and in view of that this Court may not interfere at this stage and criminality is made out.

¶35

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the charge sheet annexed with the petition. It is an admitted fact that M/s RITES Limited was provided the work contract by

¶36

¶37

Jharkhand State Electricity Board for rural electrification. M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd was the sub-contractor of M/s RITES Limited and several agreements have been executed between M/s RITES Limited and M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. The terms and conditions of the contract has been disclosed in paragraph no.5 of the charge sheet and one clause was that M/s RITES Limited was to recover an amount of 5% of the payment due to M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. as security deposit valid for a period of one year, which was to be further extended up to defect liability period. This security deposit could be substituted by Bank guarantee of equal amount to be submitted by M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd along with each bill. Bank guarantee has also been disclosed in paragraph no.6. It has come in the investigation that one original was got signed from Bank of India, Club side Branch, Ranchi and on the second original signatures of officers of the bank were forged. The petitioner took the charge as Managing Director of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd on 27.7.2005 however by letter dated 27.10.2004 to M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd requesting to cancel the genuine bank guarantee mentioned at serial no.17 to 22 was signed by Rajeev Kumar Singh s/o Ashok Kumar Singh, Director of M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. Thus, it is crystal clear that if he was appointed as Managing Director in the year 2005 how he wrote the letter dated 27.10.2004 to cancel the genuine bank guarantees on behalf of the M/s M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. In view of this, the connivance of this petitioner would not be prima facie ruled out with regard to modus operandi adopted by M/s Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. with regard to bank guarantee. The charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. The learned court has taken cognizance and prima facie it appears that offence has been made out against the petitioner as well as Ashok Kumar Singh and the company namely M/s Ramjee Power

¶38

¶39

Construction Ltd. The judgment relied by Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in dispute. In paragraph no.26 of the aforesaid judgment category (iii) speaks that where the allegations constitutes offence but there is no legal evidence adduced new evidence adduced clearly and manifestly failed to prove the charge then the High Court can exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case in hand, the materials have come in the investigation against this petitioner although he was appointed as Managing Director on 27.7.2005, however, prior to that, he has issued letter dated 27.10.2004 to cancel the genuine bank guarantee which prima facie suggest that materials are there against this petitioner also, however, all these can be proved in the trial. Thus, the judgment relied by Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helping the petitioner. The Court is conscious of the fact that liberty of any person cannot be taken away in a lighter way, however, in the case in hand, there are prima facie materials against the petitioner which can be proved or disputed in the trial. No case of interference is made out.

¶40

Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.1411 of 2009 is dismissed.

¶41

Interim orders stand vacated.

¶42

The trial will proceed in accordance with law without being

¶43

prejudiced of this order.

¶44

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶45

SI/,

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neema Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jahid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saraswati Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.