Uday Sarkar vs Union of India and another

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The petitioner has assailed proceeding in S.P.L. No.19 of 2013 pending before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas arising out of RL No.0102011A0029 dated 27.10.2011 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitioner along with others have been arrayed in the instant case on the allegation that while they were holding various responsible positions in the South Eastern Railway they had entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereby procured different non stock items from various supplies in a dishonest and illegal manner and thereby caused substantial loss to the railways. It is further the prosecution case that such non stock items are fraudulently requisitioned and purchased with fictitious names and specifications in violation of Indian Railways Code. It is also alleged that dishonestly certificates were issued indicating receipt of materials, although such materials had not been received by the department.

In conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been filed and cognizance have been taken in the instant case. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court praying that though the petitioner was posted as senior section engineer of South Eastern Railway, he alone was not responsible in placing the orders in respect of such purchases. It is also pleaded that paragraph 4 to 9 of the Indian Stores Code has no manner of application in the instant case.

I have gone through the averments made in the petition. I have also examined the averments in the impugned charge sheet. Admittedly, the petitioner had played a role in the matter of the aforesaid purchases which according to the materials collected in course of investigation are found to be in violation of the rules and such guidelines which are applicable thereto and had caused wrongful loss to the Railways. The extent of the role of the petitioner in the said transaction and culpability therein may be thrashed out during trial. However, mere allegation the other superior officers may have been involved would not grant immunity to the petitioner from the prosecution of the case. The issue as to the applicability of Indian Railways Stores Code is a question of fact which may also be thrashed out in course of trial of the case.

However, in view the uncontroverted allegations relating to dishonesty and the role played by the petitioner in the alleged purchase and the wrongful loss caused to the department thereby does not persuade me not to stall the proceeding at this premature stage.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the issues canvassed herein at the appropriate stage of proceedings and in accordance with law, if so advised.

The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible.

Observations made in this order are for disposal of this proceeding and shall not have any bearing on the matter at any subsequent stage, which, needless to mention shall be disposed of independently and in accordance with law.