Allahabad High Court

Anil Vijay And Another vs C.B.I. Acu-1 New Delhi on 7 October, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61352
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6496 of 2025   
 
   Anil Vijay And Another    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   C.B.I. Acu-1 New Delhi    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Purnendu Chakravarty   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Aakash Prasad   
 
     
 
  
 
Court No. - 17 
 
  
 
Reserved on: 12.09.2025 
 
Delivered on:07.10.2025 
 
     
 
 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants- (1) Anil Vijay (the then Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) North Zone, NPCC Ltd., Faridabad); and (2) R.C. Sharma (the then Assistant Accounts Officer, North Zone, NPCC Ltd., Faridabad), have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet no. 04 dated 23.12.2009 along with entire criminal proceedings of Court Case No. 2/2014, arising out of Crime No. RCAC12007 A0002, under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. CBI, ACU(I), New Delhi and they have also challenged validity of an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/CBI Court No. 4, Lucknow rejecting the discharge application of the applicants.

The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 23.02.2007 in Police Station CBI/ACU(I), New Delhi against - (1) unknown officials of NPCC Ltd. (National Projects Construction Company Ltd.) Delhi & Faridabad; (2) M/s. UCC, 29, Pitambar Nagar, Unnao, U.P.; and (3) Others unknown, alleging that a source information has been received about corruption in the construction of Adwa Meza Link Channel Ban Sagar Canal Project in Unnao Region, U.P., stating that on 27.05.2005, the Government of U.P. had awarded a contract to NPCC for construction of Adwa Meza Link Channel canal work at a cost of Rs. 14,60,52,604/-. Abusing their official position, certain officials of NPCC entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Unnao Construction Company (which will hereinafter be referred to as ?UCC?) and others, in pursuance of which they sublet the above work to UCC for Rs. 13.82 Crore and UCC further sublet it to another private construction company namely M/s Sat Sai Earth Works, New Delhi for Rs. 7.16 Crores i.e. almost half the amount of the contract value and thereby they caused a huge wrongful gain to UCC and corresponding wrongful loss to the public exchequer. The FIR alleges that the Unit Officer, NPCC, Kanpur had conducted a site inspection on 23.05.2005 and had submitted the rates for excavation work ranging from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 340/- per cubic meter for preparation of a bid to be submitted by NPCC to the Irrigation Department, Government of U.P. On 21.04.2005 NPCC invited limited tenders from 8 firms, including UCC, for pre tender tie-up for the aforesaid work. Out of the said 8 firms, only UCC submitted its bid dated 27.04.2005 quoting rates ranging from Rs.97.5/cubic meter to Rs. 266/cubic meter for different items of excavation work. The officers of NPCC recommended a profit margin of 5.3% against the total cost of the work as quoted by UCC, which was approved by CMD, NPCC on 02.05.2005. On 06.05.2005 the bid of UCC for Rs. 13,82,38,248/- was approved by NPCC. NPCC submitted these rates to the Irrigation Department totaling to Rs. 14,60,52,604.00 by adding a profit margin of 5.3% to the rates quoted by UCC. On 19.05.2005 the Executive Engineer, Ban Sagar Canal Construction Division-I, Irrigation Department sent a letter to NPCC informing that the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department had accepted the offer. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the Irrigation Department and NPCC under which subletting of contract was prohibited. However, NPCC sublet the work to UCC for an amount of Rs. 13,82,38,248/- and UCC in turn sublet the work to M/s Sat Sai Earth Work, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 7.16 Crores, i.e., at almost half the amount of the original contract. Therefore, by submitting inflated estimates of project work to the Government of U.P., by getting the contract at inflated rates and by subletting it further to a private firm which further sublet it to another private firm at a much lower rate, the accused persons cheated the Government of U.P. and obtained pecuniary advantages for themselves and others and caused corresponding loss to the public exchequer.

After investigation, CBI submitted a charge sheet no. 04 on 23.12.2009 against 7 accused persons, including the applicants, stating that co-accused persons Praveen Pratap Singh and Akhilesh Bahadur Singh are partners of UCC. They had entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Balkishan, Chief Engineer, Bansagar Nahar Pariyojna and some other officers of NPCC for award of canal work by U.P. Irrigation Department to UCC. The aforesaid work could not have been awarded by the Irrigation Department to UCC directly through the process of open tenders and, therefore, the accused persons entered into a conspiracy under which the Irrigation Department awarded the work to NPCC Ltd. through an MoU and NPCC passed it on to UCC through a pre tender tie up arrangement made by way of limited tender process, involving only agencies registered with NPCC. On 06.04.2005, co-accused Rajender Singh, the Zonal Manager, North Zone, NPCC Ltd. wrote a letter to the Irrigation Department, Govt. of U.P. expressing interest of NPCC to undertake the work in question. Co-accused Balkishan, Chief Engineer, Bansagar Project, sent a reply dated 20.04.2005 intimating that the canal excavation work of Adwa Meza Link Channel was to be started and invited offer of NPCC Ltd.

Meanwhile, on 15.04.2005 UCC applied for being registered with NPCC Ltd. and got itself registered on 19.04.2005 in the category of Canal and Water Resources Works for a limit of Rs. 5 Crores and in the category of Roads and Bridges Works for a limit of Rs. 10 Crores. UCC got itself registered with Employees Provident Fund Organization on 15.04.2005. On 21.04.2005, a notice inviting tender was issued to 8 registered agencies, including UCC, inviting their offers for a pre tender tie-up along with EMD of Rs. 10 lakhs to be submitted by 03:00 p.m. on 02.05.2005. It was falsely mentioned in the NIT that Irrigation Department had invited limited offers from Government undertakings. The NIT mentioned that the willing agencies might collect the bill of quantities (BOQ) from NPCC Ltd. whereas no BOQ was available with NPCC Ltd. at that time. The Chief Engineer Banasagar Project had approved the estimate for this work on 26.04.2005, i.e. 5 days after issuance of the NIT. The estimated cost, the total quantity and item-wise quantity of the work was not available with NPCC Ltd. till 27.05.2005, when the MoU was entered into between the Irrigation Department and NPCC Ltd. The whole process of limited tender was conducted without knowing the estimated cost, total quantity and the item-wise quantity of the work. The whole tender process was a sham because without item-wise quantities, the lowest bid could not be decided in case of multiple bids. UCC Ltd. submitted a single tender in response to the NIT on 27.04.2005 whereas the NIT was sent to 8 agencies by post on 26.04.2005.

The applicants Anil Vijay and R.C. Sharma were members of the tender committee constituted by co-accused Rajender Singh. The tender committee opened the single offer of UCC on 02.05.2005 in violation of the relevant rules and guidelines and put up a note dated 03.05.2005 recommending acceptance of the sole offer of UCC. UCC had submitted its bid mentioning only item-wise rates sans item-wise quantities because BOQ was not available even with the NPCC Ltd. till 27.05.2005. Without item-wise quantities of the work, it was neither possible to decide the lowest bid in case of multiple bids nor estimate the total cost of work to decide the suitability of a contractor.

The charge sheet states that the officers of NPCC Ltd., including the applicants, had obtained approval of the CMD for award of the contract by misrepresenting the facts. Approval of the CMD had been obtained for submission of rates of NPCC Ltd. to the Irrigation Department for the estimated cost of work for Rs. 10 Crore but the MoU was executed for Rs. 14,60,52,604/-.

The charge-sheet further states that UCC was registered with NPCC for the limit up to Rs. 5 Crores in the category of Canal and Water Resources Works and for the limit of Rs. 10 Crores for Roads and Bridges Works and it was not eligible to get a contract for works worth Rs. 14,60,52,604/-. It was a specific term of the agreement that UCC shall not sublet the work without prior consent of NPCC but UCC sublet the work in favor of M/s Sat Sai Earth Works Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 7,16,49,380/-, i.e. at almost half the cost at which UCC had got the work from NPCC Ltd.

The charge-sheet also states that the contract could only have been awarded through the open tender process and there was no ground to deviate from the said process. The investigation has revealed that all the accused persons, including the applicants, have violated the relevant rules and guidelines in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and thereby awarded the work to UCC even though it was not eligible to execute the work. Had the work been awarded through open tender process, the Irrigation Department would have got better competitive rates. Therefore, the accused persons have caused a wrongful pecuniary advantage to M/s UCC Ltd. and the corresponding loss to the public exchequer.

The applicants had sought their discharge on the ground that co-accused Rajendra Singh had sent a letter dated 06.04.2005 to the Irrigation Department in furtherance whereof a proposal was invited from NPCC Ltd. Co-accused Sunil Gupta had invited limited tenders from 8 registered firms out of whom, only UCC had submitted its quotation and rates. The rates of UCC were lower then the market rates and the estimated rates of the Irrigation Department. The applicants had no role to play in allotment of the work and being an Assistant Accounts Officer, he had merely forwarded the proposal of co-accused Sunil Gupta for deciding the administrative approval for a pre tie-up margin. As members of the tender committee, the applicants could have scrutinized only those tenders which had been submitted by the participating firms. It was also contended by the applicants that CBI had not made the CMD an accused in the matter though he had played the principal role in the allotment of the work and had issued all the directions. The applicants contended that the allegations levelled against them are baseless and they should be discharged.

The CBI filed objections against the applications inter alia stating that there was evidence to the effect that acting under a criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused persons, the applicants have played an active role in the tender process to give undue benefit to M/s UCC. The applicants have completed the limited tender process without the availability of estimated price, bill of quantity and item-wise quantities in absence whereof the lowest bid could not be ascertained. Instead of rejecting the process upon receipt of a single bid and inviting fresh tenders, the single bid has been accepted. The applicants have misused their official position, have been a part of a criminal conspiracy for projecting a wrong tender process as correct and as per rules.

Rejecting discharge application by the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, the trial court held that when limited tenders were invited allegedly from 8 firms but a single tender was received, as per CVC guidelines the tender process ought to have been cancelled and fresh tender ought to have been invited but the applicants did not adopt this process and they have played an active role in awarding tender to a firm on exorbitant rates. There is an ample evidence on involvement of the applicants in a criminal conspiracy for awarding work to a firm of co-accused persons against the relevant rules.

Regarding the plea of the applicants that the then CMD has not been made an accused, the trial court held that although the Investigating Officer has not charge-sheeted him, in case evidence comes to light against him during trial, he may be summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely because the CMD has not been made an accused, the applicants do not get a right to be discharged.

RC No. RCAC1 2008 A0003 was also registered against the applicant in furtherance of which a charge sheet dated 23.12.2009 was submitted, on the basis whereof Case No. 3/2014 was instituted in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, CBI Court No. 4, Lucknow against the applicant in which the applicant's application seeking discharge was rejected by means of an order dated 05.04.2025. The validity of the aforesaid charge sheet and the discharge order has been challenged by the applicant by filing application under Section 482 No.6292 of 2025. The submissions of both the cases were heard together and the learned counsel for the applicant has advanced his detailed submissions in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6292 of 2025 and he himself has submitted that the present case is similar to application under Section 6292 of 2025 and, therefore, he has not advanced any separate submissions in the present case, which has been decided by means of a separate judgment passed today dealing with all the detailed submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

The scope of inquiry while examining the validity of charge sheet or deciding an application seeking discharge of an accused person is limited so as to see whether there is sufficient material for trial of the accused person. The correctness of the allegations or the weight of the prosecution evidence is not to be examined at this stage. The facts of the case reveal that there is ample material to show that the Irrigation Department, Government of U.P. required certain works to be conducted. The works were awarded to M/s NPCC Ltd. through limited tender process, without adopting the open tender process- which is the normal practice for awarding government contracts. The accused persons could not produce any rule or regulation prohibiting adoption of open tender process and justifying the limited tender process for awarding the contracts in question.

Prima facie, it appears that the contract was awarded to M/s NPCC Ltd. in an illegal manner,. M/s NPCC Ltd. in turn sublet the contact to M/s UCC Ltd. and M/s UCC further sublet the contract to M/s. Sri Sai Earthworks at about half the contract value thereby causing wrongful loss to the public exchequer. Numerous officers/officials were involved in the entire process. The applicants had vital roles to play in acceptance of the tenders of M/s UCC Ltd.- a company which had been registered with M/s NPCC Ltd. only on 19.04.2005 for carrying out excavation works worth up to Rs. 5 Crores and the company was awarded the contract worth Rs. 14,60,52,604/-.

Without making any further observation which may affect the outcome of the trial, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts clearly make out a case of trial of the applicants.

The trial court has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting their discharge application.

The application lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

October 7, 2025

Pradeep/-