IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15250 of 2009 GOPAL PRASAD, SON OF LATE BISHUNDEO SAHAY AT PRESENT RESIDING AT F/411, KANKARBAGH COLONY, P.S.- KANKARBAGH COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE A.D.G.P., VIGILANCE, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE, SUCHANA BHAWAN, PATNA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. M.P. Jha, Advocate Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Vigilance :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Advocate ----------- 6 20.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding with respect to Special Case No. 12 of 2009 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 2009 instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7, 8, 13(ii) and 13(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Superintending Engineer performing the job of a Chief Engineer of the Building Construction Department. One Rajo Yadav a contractor filed a complaint before the Vigilance Department as 2 well as before the petitioner alleging that the Bill of Quantity which was advertised on 2.3.2009 vide annexure-2 was not being supplied to the contractors and that the Bill of Quantity was issued by the Executive Engineer to a particular contractor in order to favour him. The Bill of Quantity was to be made available on 12.3.2009 at 1 p.m. to 13.3.2009 at 3 p.m. The Vigilance Department conducted an enquiry and reached the office of the Executive Engineer where they found that the entire office was empty and apart from class III and IV employees none else was present. The Vigilance team also found that one Daya Shankar Upadhyay was present in the office and he was carrying certain files of the Government allegedly to the house of the Executive Engineer to get his signature. These files relate to several B.O.Qs. The files belonged to the department and the Vigilance team came to know from the employees that the Executive Engineer works from his residence and does not attend the office. It is alleged that the petitioner along with the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and others are responsible for committing the 3 offences aforesaid in order to cause loss to the Government treasury. Mr. M.P. Jha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as far as petitioner is concerned, he was not supposed to be present at the office of the Executive Engineer and have knowledge as to what was taking place on a day to day basis. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on a letter dated 12.3.2009, contained in annexure-3, that as soon as the petitioner learnt from Rajo Yadav, the contractor, that there was some anomalies with respect to supply of the Bill of Quantity, the petitioner at once wrote to the Executive Engineer and asked him to postpone the entire proceeding of issuing B.O.Qs. Therefore, the submission is that the involvement of this petitioner in the proceeding does not appear to be justified on the ground that as soon as the petitioner received a complaint, he took steps to stop the entire transaction. Mr. Rakesh Kumar counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department submits that this case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint received. It is submitted that it 4 is still under investigation and the Vigilance Department will no doubt take into consideration the documents etc. which have been supplied before this Court before coming to a finding that the petitioner is involved in the said transaction. It is submitted that at this stage when the investigation is still incomplete the Court should not quash the First Information Report as far as it concerns the petitioner at this preliminary stage. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the Vigilance Department, this Court finds that it would not be proper for the Court to interfere at the preliminary stage where investigation is still going on. However, the petitioner may appear before the concerned authorities of the Vigilance Department to put forth his case and produce all the documents in his favour so that the Vigilance Department may reach to a proper conclusion as far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the petitioner appears he may be taken into custody, therefore, this Court may permit the petitioner to send the relevant 5 documents to the Vigilance Department by courier or registered post. It would be open to the petitioner to take such steps as he thinks proper. Mr. Rakesh Kumar counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department may advise the investigating agency to consider the documents and treat them up part of the record especially in view of the fact that the complaint has been filed by a contractor who was never granted B.O.Q for one reason or the other, and in fact the B.O.Q’s were never sold on 12.3.2009 as allged in the complaint filed by Rajo Yadav. This application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)