IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26 of 2010 BINOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.VIG. ----------- 3. 6.7.2010. Heard. The petitioner has been put on trial by the Vigilance Judge-I, Patna in Special Case No.16 of 2008. The petitioner seeks the quashing of that order and the prosecution which has been launched through it, in the above noted case. The gist of allegations appears at page-2 of the FIR that by manipulations in the measurement book, the petitioner received excess amount than the actual work he had done in respect to the maintenance and repair works carried out by him under a contract as regards the residential establishments of Class-III and Class-IV employees of the I.G.M.S located in the P.M.C.H. The above work was also to be carried out in the canteen of the above noted institute. The petitioner was the contractor and he was found having done work lesser in value of Rs.27,374/- when he has shown the work of the value of Rs.99,980/-. Besides, another work of the value of Rs.34,500/- was found carried out at a place which was not within the ambit of the contract. - 2 - It was alleged that the petitioner had received the payment of Rs.88,267/- by the cheque which is mentioned in the report and thus, has embezzled 60 per cent of the cost of the contractor. Many contentions were raised before me by Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner including that the petitioner could be relinquishing his claim over the money which could be having on account of completing the contractual obligations if the proceedings could be quashed. It was also contended that the actual offenders were not the petitioner or the Junior Engineer, who was creating the measurement book, but those were some senior engineers of the department who had passed orders on payment. But the Vigilance Department has been highly selective in launching the prosecution ignoring the complicity of those who have not been arrayed as an accused, who have really passed one order on the other on payment of money to the petitioner. The last contention was that the offences were compoundable and as such a direction to this effect may be issued. - 3 - The court finds that the offences could not be compoundable when it relates to indulging in corruption and embezzlement of public money. All embezzlements could not be allowed to be compounded when it is so blatant. Besides, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not make any offence compoundable. So far as the allegations are concerned there is very clear and special instances are quite in place as regards the story of embezzling 60 per cent of the total contractual amount. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that others who were not clubbed with him for trial, the door of justice are not closed, they could be brought to justice, because the courts have power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. In case the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that there were persons other than the accused on trial who appeared also committing the offence, the court believes that if the evidence of that quality is available, the learned Judge who is trying the case shall never be flinching in discharging his judicial duties. So far as the merits of the - 4 - petition is concerned, after having perused the facts of the case and after having said the above, I find that there is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. If any stay has been granted by any order of the court that shall stand vacated as regards the trial of the case. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )