Dismissed

Lalit Kumar Kothari v. The Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Patna, Bihar

Patna HC29 Jun 2016CR. WJC/475/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Special Judge CBI-III, Patna's refusal to discharge the petitioner in a cheating case related to a Railways tender. The High Court held the impugned order was not hit by any patent illegality and formed an opinion that the petitioner was merely delaying the trial, thus dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lalit Kumar Kothari Vs The Central Bureau Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.475 of 2016 Arising Out of RC No.20A of 2012 (Special Case No.14 of 2012) District- PATNA =========================================================== Lalit Kumar Kothari, son of Late Mathura Das Kothari, resident of Flat No.9B/3, Satyam Towers, 3, Alipore Road, P.S. Alipore, District Kolkata, State- West Bengal. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Patna, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, S.C. C.B.I. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-06-2016

¶3

The order dated 18^th of March, 2016 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I.-III, Patna, is subject matter of challenge in the present petition, whereby an application for discharge submitted by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was declined.

¶4

The petitioner represents M/s Perfecto Electricals, Kolkata who submitted its bid for the work of “Penal Interlocking in Sitamarhi excluding Raxaul-Narkatiyaganj gauge conversion in Samastipur division of EC Railway”. Apart from the petitioner, Sri Shyam Lal Prasad, the then Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer EC Railway Hajipur, was also proceeded against for the reason that Sri Shyam Lal Prasad falsely apprised the tender committee that the site of

¶5

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.475 of 2016 dt.29-06-2016

¶6

2/3

¶7

work was a difficult site to work being remote location, poor law and order situation, insurgent activities and poor road conditions, store of the work was at Samastipur, quite far from the site of work etc. contrary to the fact that these factors were already covered when rate analysis were done. By giving false justification, the total awarded value of tender was Rs.17.09 crore against the value of tender which was Rs.12.60 crore.

¶8

A perusal of the order shows that earlier the petitioner filed a petition for quashing which was withdrawn with a liberty to raise all the points at the stage of framing of charge but without permitting the learned Special Judge to frame charge, the petitioner moved an application for discharge. The learned Special Judge has given cogent and detailed reasons as to why no case is made out for discharge. In fact, it appears that the petitioner is making out all efforts to delay the trial on one ground or the other so as to defeat the cause of justice. The finding recorded by the learned Special Judge is that petitioner M/s Perfecto Electricals, Kolkata is an experienced S & T contractor and has executed several works of this nature before in other division of Railways. He was aware of actual price of data logger and SSDAC even though he did not reduce his offered price during negotiation, rather he fraudulently and dishonestly wrote a letter dated 18.11.2008 to CSYTE.CON 1 EC Railway highlighting law and order

¶9

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.475 of 2016 dt.29-06-2016

¶10

3/3

¶11

problem, maoist, insurgency, remoteness of work place from stores etc. though he was already working in Darbhanga and Sitamarhi project.

¶12

After going through the order, I do not find that the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI III, Patna suffers from any patent illegality or irregularity which warrants interference in the present petition. Still further the earlier petition for quashing of the FIR was withdrawn so as to take all plea at the time of framing charge but the petitioner filed an application for discharge even without permitting the Court to consider the framing of charge just with an intention to delay the proceedings.

¶13

Therefore, the learned Special Judge, CBI- III, Patna is directed to take steps to conclude the trial in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ application is dismissed.

¶15

(Hemant Gupta, J.)

¶16

Sunil

¶17

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	N. A.
Uploading Date	12.07.2016
Transmission Date	12.07.2016

Lalit Kumar Kothari v. The Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Patna, Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lalit Kumar Kothari v. The Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Patna, Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrawati Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hari Om Sharan Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Razia Begum Vs The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Shatrughan Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Dinesh Prasad Vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary Rural Development New Delhi and Ors.

Jitendra Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.