T.T. Yusuf vs State

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.—Calling in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 27.4.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge in connection with Special Case No. 05/11, the accused/petitioner filed this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet filed against him.

Sieving out unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a nutshell is such that a reliable information has been received by SPE/CBI/Port Blair on 28.7.2011 that one Gurupada Mondal (Executive Engineer) of North Andaman Construction Division, APWD, Mayabunder by misusing his official position as public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy with C.M. Roy (Government Contractor), Goalghar and other public servants. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, said Gurupada Mondal awarded the contract of construction of 20 numbers of Type-III quarters at Sub-division-1, Mayabunder to Shri C.M. Roy wherein the said contractor quoted Rs. 2,40,72,212/- for the said work. This was the lowest among the other tenderers. Curiously enough, at the time of awarding the work order, said Gurupada Mondal and C.M. Roy in connivance with other officials of NACD altered the amount mentioned in the certain items of the tender submitted by Shri C.M. Roy and in that process they have attempted to commit forgery and enhanced the tender value by an amount of Rs. 32,68,168/- over and above the actually quoted amount of Rs. 2,40,72,212/-. Shri Gurupada Mondal (Executive Engineer), NACD invited sealed item-wise rated tender from the eligible contractors. On the relevant day Shri Gurupada Mondal was not in station and so it was opened by the Assistant Engineer-in-Charge of Gurupada Mondal at the prescribed time and date mentioned in the tender. The said Assistant Engineer declared C.M. Roy as the lowest bidder and has also announced the value quoted by him as Rs. 2,40,72,212/- in the presence of other contractors. At the time of opening the tender there was no correction, deletion or overwriting. Subsequently the said tender value was raised to the tune of Rs. 2,73,40,380/-. In order to ensure that C.M. Roy quoted to be lowest bidder despite the alteration, the accused/petitioner directly altered the total amount by enhancing the amount to the extent of Rs. 32,68,168/-.

FIR was registered. Pursuant to the said FIR the I.O. has taken up investigation. In course of investigation, the I.O. has recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seized the relevant documents regarding the said tender process, collected opinion of all experts regarding handwriting of the present accused-petitioner, obtained sanction from the Government for prosecution and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 420/511/467/468/471/477A IPC read with Section 13 Clause 2 and Section 13 Clause 1(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

At the time of hearing Mr. Tulsi Lall, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner raised his voice stating inter alia that for want of evidence, the I.O. himself did not submit charge sheet against C.M. Roy (Contractor). Another accused Gurupada Mandal (Executive Engineer) has been discharged by this Hon''ble Court. CBI preferred SLP(Criminal) 5309 of 2012 but that was turned down by the Hon''ble Apex Court. He wonders how the present accused will face the trial under Section 120B IPC, when there is no other accused.

Apparently, there is enough force in such submission but if we dip into the surface we would find something else. It appears from the record that the interpolations were made in the documents kept in the official file relating to the said tender. C.M. Roy (Contractor) is supposed to have no access to the official file and so he has been exonerated by the I.O. The said I.O. submitted charge sheet against Gurupada Mondal but this Hon''ble Court discharged him with some riders. Finding of the Hon''ble Court has been reached its finality, when Hon''ble Apex Court put seal of approval of this Court''s order.

Opinion of the expert regarding handwriting of the present accused went against the accused/petitioner. This accused/petitioner had the access to the relevant files and documents. Therefore, involvement of the present accused/petitioner in the commission of offence cannot be ruled out at this early stage. Sanction for prosecution has been obtained and accordingly charge sheet is submitted.

Learned Counsel Mr. M. Navas appearing on behalf of the CBI contended that if any prima facie case has been established, after a thorough investigation, in that case Court should not hastily quash the proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

It is true that High Court can quash the FIR only in exceptional circumstances. If the allegations in the complaint and the result of investigation discloses prima facie the commission of offence, in that case duty of the Court is to allow the prosecution to continue, but if it does not, which would justify an inference that the trial would be a futile chase or otherwise malafide, an innocent person should not be subjected to humiliation of a full-dressed trial. At the same time an ex-facie well-merited case should not be throttled at the threshold without allowing the material, in support of it, to see the light of the day. While considering the question of quashing FIR on a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., pre-judging the prosecution case by examining its weakness and contradictions is not permissible in the eye of law. Only when no offence is spelt in the FIR itself, the Court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. It is to be kept in mind that this section has been incorporated in the statute "to prevent abuse of the process of any court" and "to secure the ends of justice".

Considering the factual aspect and legal aspect of the instant case there is no reason to quash the FIR as prayed for. The impugned order dated 27.4.15 is quite unimpeachable and it does not require any interference.

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed on contest. Since the CRR 014/2015 is dismissed, CRAN application 011/2015 is also dismissed.

Learned Court below is directed to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement and order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, after fulfilling all required formalities.