Leelanand Jha vs State Of Jharkhand Through S.P., A.C.B.

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.02.2018 by which the discharge petition has been rejected in connection with Sadar (Vigilance) P.S. Case No.50 of 2010 corresponding to Special (Vigilance) P.S. Case No.67 of 2010 and consequent order of framing of charge.

The petitioner has retired from the post of Executive Engineer and the prosecution case against him is that during the relevant time he was Executive Engineer when contract was awarded to one Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay for construction of 15.32 Km of road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana for IVth phase 2006-07 from Fatehpur to Tiumu and Hesal-Kurse Road of 2.05 Km for an estimated cost of Rs.3,51,91,063/-. The F.I.R. was lodged against this petitioner and others on the ground that he had committed embezzlement in payment of bills to the tune of Rs.1,03,67,391/-.

The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that only 10% bill amount has been cleared by him and balance was cleared by other officials.

Learned Special P.P. on behalf of A.C.B. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that on 12.09.2006, an agreement was executed by the Contractor to complete the work within 09 months but the work was not completed by the said Contractor. At that time, this petitioner was Executive Engineer who in connivance with other officials, cleared the bill, causing wrongful loss the public exchequer. Out of 15 Km., only 08 Km. long road was constructed which was also of sub-standard quality. Four bills were raised against which payments were made. Further, wrong entries were made in the measurement book.

The scope of adjudication at the stage of framing of charge is settled.

At the time of framing of charge, the trial Court is required to consider only the police report. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defence need to be undertaken at this stage. The test for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever. Where material on record discloses offence, accused cannot be discharged.

It has been held in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274

It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : AIR 1977 SC 2018] the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged.

I have gone through the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

Criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.