Eapen Chacko vs State of J&K & Ors.

Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this court in terms of section 561A Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 35/2000 and the orders passed by

the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar. Virtually, petitioner has sought quashing of FIR and the proceedings taken thereon by the trial court.

It is averred in the petition that no amount has been drawn from the treasury and thereby no loss has been caused to the State exchequer. The

petitioner is not involved in the conspiracy and there is no allegation contained in the FIR read with charge sheet that the petitioner was involved in

the conspiracy.

The averments contained in the petition and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are not worth consideration for the

simple reason that these are the questions to be gone into during trial, but prima facie the trial court has specifically opined that the petitioner and

the officials of the J&K Lakes and Waterways Development Authority (for short LAWDA) hatched a conspiracy in order to purchase several

spare parts from the petitioner on higher and exorbitant rates when same were available in the market at low rates. It is apt to reproduce relevant

portion of the judgment hereunder:

..................................

Evidently no purchase committee was constituted by accused No. 1 for purchase of the spare parts nor any tenders were flouted as was required

under the financial powers of the officials as provided for in JKPCC which stood adopted by the LAWDA vide its 1st meeting of Board of

Directors as stated earlier, in so far as the assertion of the learned counsel for the accused that the spares could not have been purchased from the

local market or from the other reputed company in concerned, same does not appear tenable at this stage. Accused persons appear to have

purchased certain spares earlier from the local market at lower rates. The rates of some of the spares earlier purchased from the local market

appears to be quite lower than the rates for which the spares were purchased from the accused No. 3. Similarly, the rates of some of the spare

parts purchased from P.K. Earth Movers earlier and the spare purchased from the accused No. 3 appear lower than the rates of the accused No.

Further P.K. Earth Movers and M/S Kirloskar offered 50% less than M/S Temba rates. It prima facie shows that the accused No's 1 and 2

have purchased spares from M/S Tebma through accused No. 3 at a very exorbitant rates. Accused persons, thus, prima facie appear to have

caused a loss to the state exchequer and pecuniary gain to accused No. 3.

Thus at this stage, prima facie a case exists against the accused persons to proceed against them inasmuch as there is a strong suspicion against

them for having committed the offence punishable under sections 5(1)(c)(d) read with section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act read

with section 120B RPC Charge is thus required to be framed against the accused.

The Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, after collecting material and the documents during investigation, submitted a final report in terms of section

173 Cr. P.C. and the trial court after examining the said material came to the conclusion that prima facie, there are grounds to presume that the

accused are involved in the commission of the offences and accordingly charged them for the offences punishable under sections 5(1)(c)(d) read

with section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120B RPC vide order dated 2022006. Said order cannot be

questioned by way of revision petition as the same is interlocutory in nature. Scope of invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561A

Cr. P.C. is very limited. This remedy cannot be exercised in order to do away with the order which is otherwise not revisable. The powers under

section 561A Cr. P.C. is to be exercised very sparingly, cautiously and in rarest of rare of cases. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Reshma Bano Vs. State of UP & ors., 2008 AIR SCW1998.

It appears prima facie that the highest rates were offered by the petitioner and accepted by the department other coaccused and the

articles/spare parts came to be supplied by the petitioner and accepted by the department other coaccused.

The questions why the amount was not drawn from the treasury and what is its effect are to be thrashed out during the trial.

The petitioner also in support of his contention cited catena of authorities including 1972 Cr.LJ. 849 (V 78 C 212), AIR 1877 SC 822, AIR

1980 SC 366, AIR 1983 SC 67,1987 Cr.LJ. 1827, AIR 1989 SC 2222, 1993 CR.LJ. 1510, AIR 1996 SC 3390, 1997(8) Supreme 490 and

AIR 2006 SC 336 which are of no help to him and have no bearing on the facts of the present ease.

Keeping in view the charge sheet and the findings returned by the trial court, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for quashing

the FIR and the proceedings taken thereon. Accordingly this petition merits to be dismissed. Order accordingly.