Shajan T. Oomen vs The State (CBI)

Debi Prosad Dey, J. - The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report against the petitioner under section 120/420 of Indian Penal Code read with section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that the petitioner along with some officials of Zilla Parishad, South Andaman entered into the criminal conspiracy with nine private firms with criminal intention in execution of the work of improvement and renovation of 6.2 kilo meter road at Radha Nagar under Vijay Naga, Havelock Island and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy cheated Zilla Parishad, South Andaman. The Central Bureau of Investigation ultimately submitted charge sheet against the petitioner.

The quintessence of the charge sheet is that the petitioner caused wrongful loss to the Zilla Parishad by using his power and position and thereby engaged in corruption and benefited himself by cheating Zilla Parishad in execution of the work under reference.

The petitioner has misused his power and position. As per the charge sheet, the petitioner, being an Executive Engineer of Zilla Parishad, splitted the work of 6.2 k.ms into four (4) part and thereafter he further splitted those four (4) works into 22 segments to keep the estimated cost of each segment within Rs.10.00 lakhs in order to bring those works within his financial capacity.

The further case of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that, though the work was divided in 22 segments, yet the said works were allotted to only nine (9) contractors. Moreover, during investigation, it was found that the materials for improvement and renovation of the road like metals, chips, bitumen etc were never purchased or transported from Port Blair or from mainland to Havelock by sea and the said fact has been duly confirmed by the Central Bureau of Investigation from the report of the Port Management Board. The investigation, accordingly, culminated in filing of charge sheet against the present petitioner and others.

Learned advocate Mr.Binnu Kumar vehemently contended that the Central Bureau of Investigation completely misdirected itself in holding that actually no work was done by some of the contractors and false bills have been passed and paid by the present petitioner in order to cause loss to the Zilla Parishad. Learned advocate further contended that the Central Bureau of Investigation did not consider the report of Central Vigilance Commission wherein no case was made out against the present petitioner.

Learned Special Judge also failed to consider the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, in this regard. Learned advocate Mr.Binnu Kumar further contended that the proposals were accepted in the minutes of the meeting of the Gram Sabha and in order to give fillip to the progress of the work such work was divided in 22 segments that too at the instance of the Superintending Engineer and the present petitioner had no role to play.

It is submitted that there is absolutely no material against the present petitioner and, accordingly, the entire case ought to be quashed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge wherein the learned Special Judge held that there are sufficient grounds against the petitioner to frame charge in the case under reference.

Learned advocate Mr.Navas appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation contended that the report of the Central Vigilance Commission is not a part of the charge sheet submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and, accordingly, at this stage, the said report cannot be looked into. It is further submitted that even if the said report of Central Vigilance Commission be taken into consideration, it would appear that the report clearly points out that the present petitioner abused his financial power in execution of the work under reference.

Mr.Navas further contended that all the materials have been collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation and thereafter the charge sheet has been submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr.Navas further submitted that there is absolutely no scope to hold at this stage that the learned Special Judge is going to frame charge against the present petitioner without any basis.

Mr.Binnu Kumar contended that by invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the entire case ought to be quashed.

The petitioner is duty bound to show that no case has been made out even after such strenuous investigation. It is necessary to establish that the petitioner has been unnecessarily entangled in a criminal proceeding without having any chance of success against the petitioner. Sufficient documents and the materials have been collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation in order to justify that there are at least some grounds to frame charge against the petitioner.

Secondly, the report of the Central Vigilance Commission is a not part of the final report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and accordingly, there is no scope to look into the report of the Central Vigilance Commission at this stage. Moreover, that report of Central Vigilance Commission also reveals that the petitioner misused his financial power in order to cause wrongful loss to the Zilla Parishad and thereby cheated the Zilla Parishad to the tune of more than 2.00 crores.

It is well settled principle of law that the court may frame charge even on the basis of grave suspicion. Secondly, if the documents and materials collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation remains uncontroverted, the petitioner may safely be convicted on the basis of such uncontroverted documents and materials collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, it may safely be stated that there are sufficient materials to justify in framing charge against the petitioner.

It is well settled principle of law that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should be used to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There is no straight jacket formula in invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the court must be reluctant to interfere with any criminal proceeding unless the court is of the view that initiation or continuance of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court or quashing of the impugned proceeding would secure the ends of justice.

At this stage, this court cannot decide the merit of the case in order to appreciate the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner. Prima facie, it transpires that sufficient materials have been collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings in no stretch of imagination can be termed to be abuse of process of law. There is absolutely no scope to hold that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case under reference and continuance of the proceeding amounts to abuse of process.

Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in (2013) 1 Supreme 493 (Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi) in support of his contention. The Hon''ble Apex Court quashed the proceeding under section 376 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that the statements made by the prosecutrix under section 164 was false and the prosecutrix herself prayed for quashing of First Information Report. The fact situation of the said case is altogether different from the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. The involvement of the present petitioner in different work in 22 segments has been clearly established. The misuse of power and position of the petitioner has been established by such detailed investigation of Central Bureau of Investigation.

In that view of this case, the decision referred to herein above has had no application in this case. In that view of this case, I find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Special Judge. I also do not find any merits to hold that the proceedings instituted against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process.

In that view of this case, I find no merit in the petition under reference and the CRR No.01 of 2016 is, thus, dismissed.