The High Court of Jharkhand held that a quashing petition under Article 226 could not be entertained as the prima facie material showed criminal conspiracy causing public loss, and the grievance regarding mens rea belonged to the trial stage.
The petition for quashing the criminal proceedings was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2022
Pradip Kumar Chakraborty … Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
03/06.10.2023 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the CBI.
2 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2022
of Road Header Machines of 1.6M, the said company supplied machines with over all height much more that specified in N.I.T. and supply order. It was also alleged that inspection reports were submitted by the said company, due to which, both machines were not accepted by W.J. Area, Moonidih, BCCL, Dhanbad, but still the accused officials accepted the machines and made 80% of the payment and they tried to justify the said illegal procurement to reuse the rejected machines instead of insisting the said firm to replace or modify the machines at their cost. It was known to the accused officials that the height of machines was much higher than the available seam of coal and as such there was no way the machines could have been put to any productive use. It was further alleged that they failed to recommend any action against the said company or its Indian agent who had supplied the machines which was not as per supply order and taken 80% payment. It was also alleged that one of the Road Header Machine broke down since November, 2015 and another was stopped w.e.f. 03.02.2016 due to expiry of permission time of field trial. Thus, the petitioner and other co-accused, public servants of BCCL firms have cheated the BCCL and caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.11.6 Crores approx and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
3 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2022
the petitioner was only acted as a member of Tender Committee for supply of goods in question and in view of that, no case is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that there is no deviation of term of NIT. The petitioner has only accepted the technical scrutiny report and he has acted as per the purchase manual. He also submits that there is nothing about unqualified and conditional offer. He submits that a suit has been filed by the BCCL against the bidder being O.S. No.77/2021 before the Commercial Court at Dhanbad, which is now pending. He also submits that the IPC as well as PC Act sections are not attracted. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.
4 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2022
Rs.11,15,62,132/- to BCCL with corresponding wrongful gain to M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, China and its Indian agent M/s Minop Innovative Technologies Private Limited, Kolkata. He further submits that in the investigation, it has come that during 2008-16 the petitioner along with other accused entered into criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and with M/s Joy Global (Jiamusi) Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, China (erstwhile M/s Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Limited, China), M/s Minop Innovative Technologies Private Limited, Kolkata, Pravin Parkeria and Milan Parkeria with a view to cheat and defraud the BCCL. He submits that the learned Court has already taken cognizance against the petitioner and at this stage, this Court may not interfere with this petition.
5 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2022
entire criminal proceedings and that is the subject matter of trial. Prima facie, materials are there against the petitioner.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for cheating the public exchequer should be quashed under Article 226.
Whether the allegation of criminal conspiracy by the petitioner necessitates interference at the stage of quashing proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradip Kumar Chakraborty
Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
