* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 400 OF 2007 Union of India at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation ACB, Tanna House, Mumbai .....Applicants/Orig.Resps Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Verma .....Respondent no.1/Orig. Applicant 2. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent no.2. ======== Mr.R.F.Lambay, Public Prosecutor for applicants. Mr.Ganesh Gole,Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State-respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 29 th July, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. The Union of India by this Revision Application challenges correctness and legality of the order of discharge of respondent no.1. In Special Case No.1 of 2005. 3. Punjab National Bank entered into an agreement with M/s.Klassics Constructions Private limited for construction of bank building and staff quarters at Kandivali, Mumbai. * 2 * M/s.Impact Design Group were appointed as Architects for the said purpose. The applicant was appointed as “Chief Project, Punjab National Bank”. He was to be incharge of the project as well as Senior Site Engineer. It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant and the other co-accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank and forged documents with an object to cause wrongful loss to the bank and correspondent wrongful gains to himself and the other co-accused. The applicant and other co-accused are alleged to have falsely shown purchase of cement from M/s.Anuradha Enterprise and M/s.Shakti Trading and prepared false bills in their name. The amounts under such fictitious bills have been allegedly misappropriated by them. Since, the applicant is a public servant, the provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have also been invoked against him apart from the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 4. As Chief Project, the applicant was to be in full time supervision service (covering time and quality control) including checking of the bills alongwith the measurement of the work to architect M/s.Impact Design Group. The learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the entire material produced before him found that though the applicant was initially to be incharge of the over all supervision of the work of construction, by * 3 * subsequent agreement dated 27th November, 2001 executed between architect and the bank, it was agreed that the architect, for the additional payment, will provide full time supervision services (covering time and quality control) including checking of bills alongwith measurement of the project. Thus the work assigned to the applicant came to be made over to the proprietor of the architect firm. With this, the procedure followed in respect of the bills for purchase was that the bills submitted by the contractor to the architect were checked by the applicant and sent to consultant architect for verification and recommendations. In other words, payments under the bills were to be released by bank only on recommendations by the architect. The procedure followed makes it clear that the final verification and recommendation was done not by the applicant but by consulting architect. 5. The applicant is sought to be connected with the offences alleged, on the basis of the statements of one Mr.Sankhe and one Mr.Durve. Their statements were recorded twice, once in the year February, 2004 and then in September, 2004. The learned Judge found serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. In his first statement, Sankhe had stated that he had physically verified the original challans and confirmed that the actual cement bags were received by M/s.Klassics Construction * 4 * Private Ltd, on the basis of which the bills were prepared. In the subsequent statement, however, he took a somersalt to state that he had prepared the bills at the instance of the applicant. Similarly, is the statement of Mr.Durve. The learned Judge observed that the main thrust of the case of CBI was that the cement purported to have been received was not received and that the supplier was a fictitious firm. The record did not disclose the role of the applicant in this conspiracy. The learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that the material collected and placed before the court was not such to frame charge against the applicant. I have perused the entire material before the court and I am in agreement with the observations of the learned Sessions Judge. I see no manifest error or illegality in the order passed. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is rejected. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]