Parduman Kumar Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
1998 Latest Caselaw 369 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. The petitioner's bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, Delhi on 4.3.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of bail in a case arising out of the FIR filed by CBI in a case under Section 120B read with Sections 420,465,467, 468,471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The Social Welfare Department of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi awarded contracts to Super Bazzar, Delhi for supplying high protein biscuits of specified quality and ground nuts to various Aganwaries in Delhi pursuant to a scheme for providing supplementary nutritions to children and destitute mothers belonging to poor families.

3. The Super Bazzar in turn awarded a contract to M/s. Mahamaya Foods, a partnership firm at Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioner P.K. Jain and accused Satpal Ahuja have been partners of M/s. Mahamaya Foods. The high protein biscuits were to be supplied in the year 1993-94, 1994-95 and ground nuts during 1995-96. M/s. Mahamaya Foods claimed and received around Rs. 9 crores from the Social Welfare Department, Delhi through Super Bazzar against the alleged supply of biscuits from April, 1993 to September, 1995.

4. It is alleged in the FIR that the biscuits supplied by M/s. Mahamaya Foods were of sub-standard quality because the biscuits which were supplied did not contain either the requisite calories or protein. It is also alleged that officials of the Super Bazzar, namely, Surjit Banerjee, General Manager, R.D. Srivastava, Deputy General Manager and Manager Purchase, T.N. Bajaj allowed several concessions to M/s. Mahamaya Foods; The special concessions given to the petitioner's firm are reproduced as under:

1. Mahamaya Foods was allowed to get the challan printed in the name of Super Bazzar and issued the same to C.D.P.O. (Delhi Govt.)

2. At the time of delivery of biscuits, M/s. Mahamaya Foods was also allowed to get the bill books printed on behalf of the Super Bazzar.

3. The firm was also allowed the petitioner firm to collect the cheques from ICDS by giving receipts in favour of Super Bazzar.

4. It was also decided that in this case the purchase of the said supplies be booked in the Central Procurement Cell instead of relevant department.

5. It is mentioned in the FIR that these concessions were never allowed to any other party ever before by the Super Bazzar in the past. This departure has been made for the first time for the petitioner firm. It is further mentioned in the FIR that by allowing such confessions to the firm, the possibility of misuse of the above facility by the firm increased he

6. It is also alleged that the details of the documents regarding transportation of the said supply of the items to the ICDs have not been kept on record by the Purchase Department of the Super Bazzar. It is further alleged that under these circumstances, the misappropriation of the stock cannot be ruled out.

7. The CBI has filed reply to the petition and in the reply it is stated that the investigation in this case has revealed that in some cases, the delivery/challans even contained inflated figures in respect of quantity actually delivered.

8. It is also stated in the reply filed by the CBI that during investigation, it has been revealed that M/s. Mahamaya Foods was not having any manufacturing unit of its own. The said firm purchased biscuits of ordinary quality with low protein from M/s. Victoria Biscuits. M/s. Mahamaya Foods claimed and received about Rs. 9 crores from the Government exchequer for supplying biscuits of ordinary quality to Aganwari under the ICDS scheme though submit voucher by manufacturing the bills of bogus firm, namely, M/s Prakash Traders, etc. who was not at all connected with the manufacture of biscuits. Even M/s. Victoria biscuits was not having the capacity to manufacture biscuits of more than value of Rs. 10 Lakhs in a year.

9. It is also mentioned in the reply that the forged transport receipts in connection with the alleged supply to ICDS were prepared at the behest of the petitioner/accused P.K. Jain inasmuch as the transport bills of nonexisting transport company, M/s. G.S. Gujral Carriers, Shahdara, Delhi were used for showing the alleged supply. The Social Welfare Department issued a show cause notice to Super Bazzar for terminating the contract on the ground of supply of sub-standard biscuits.

10. It is also mentioned in the reply that during investigation, M/s. Mahamaya Foods claimed and received payment from the Government Exchequer the basis of bogus delivery challans. On a number of delivery challans the signatures of Aganwri workers of ICDS were forged. It is also alleged that petitioner P.K. Jain and his partner accused Satpal Ahuja, used the delivery challans in order to defraud the Government Exchequer. On several occasions, the reported supplies were shown to have been delivered to some unknown persons who were neither the employees of the Social Welfare Department nor were authorised in any manner to take delivery of biscuits consignments.

11. The learned Special Judge after taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances did not release the petitioner on bail.

12. Mr. D. C. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 62 days and in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released.

13. Mr. Mathur, also submitted that even on the facts of this case , no case under Section 467 IPC is made out against the petitioner.

14. Mr. Mathur further submitted that the investigating agency-the CBI has adopted a policy of discrimination. In this very case the other co-accused Surjit Banerjee, General Manager and R.D. Srivastava, Deputy General Manager though were involved in these very offences have not been arrested. Whereas the petitioner is in custody for more than two months.

15. Mr. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, Viney Jacob Vs. CBI, 1993 Journal of Criminal Cases 131. In the said case, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that no doubt investigating agency in its discretion has to decide as to which of accused has to be arrested and at what stage. However, the Court has jurisdiction to ask the reasons for not arresting the main accused while considering the bail application. In the said judgment, it is also observed that the investigating agency should not base its decision on whims and arbitrariness.

16. Mr.A.K. Dutt, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that it would neither be appropriate nor justified to release the accused on bail. Mr. Dutt also submitted that the investigation of this case is under active progress.

17. Mr. Dutt refuted the allegation of discrimination levelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the investigation in this case is yet not over and he assured the Court that the CBI would take action against each and every accused involved in this case without any discrimination.

18. Mr. Dutt opposed the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that two important relevant files are missing from the record of the Super Bazzar. These above mentioned files have yet not been traced. It is further mentioned in the reply that some of the main witnesses remain to be examined. It is mentioned that the accused persons have defrauded the Government Exchequer by lodging a false claim and receiving huge amount.

19. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage particularly when very important witnesses are yet to be examined. The bail application being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to direct the CBI to complete investigation including recording of the statement as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that any observations made in this order shall not be construed as reflection on the merits of this case.

20. This petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions.