Kausalendra Kumar Singh @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3572 Jhar

                                     1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr.M.P. No. 376 of 2020

     1. Kausalendra Kumar Singh @ Kaushlendra Kumar
     2. Anil Kumar                              ..... ... Petitioner
                           Versus
      The State of Jharkhand               ..........Respondent


                    ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners       : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate
                            Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State              :Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.

09/Dated: 20/09/2023

Heard Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding including order dated 19.07.2010 whereby cognizance has been

taken against the petitioner under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477--A, 120-B

of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (2) read with Section (1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of

2003 (Special Case No. 24 of 2003) pending in the Court of learned Special

Judge, (ACB), Dumka.

3. The Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2003 (Special Case No. 24

of 2003) has been registered on the basis of written report of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ranchi alleging therein that the records of

office of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka were inspected with regard to

allegations of purchase of medicine and instruments scamp and during

investigation, it transpired that certain irregularities were committed in the

purchase of medicine by the ACMO, Dumka and after supply of the medicine,

payment was made to M/s India Agency, Dhanbad causing loss to state

exchequer.

4. Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 19.07.2010

whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 409,

420, 468, 471, 477--A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (2) read

with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the

said order is not reasoned one. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 is

proprietor of M/s India Agency, Dhanbad and petitioner no. 2 is partner of the

said firm. He further submits that the petitioners are not named in F.I.R. but

their agency M/s India Agency has been figured as an accused in column no. 5

of the F.I.R. He submits that the said case has been registered against the

petitioner only on suspicion and M/s India Agency is the authorized agent of

T.T.K company and on the basis of advice of T.T.K company the petitioners'

firm has supplied the medicine to the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka

and has received the payment also. He further submits that it appears from the

F.I.R that medicine was purchased from the non-government company which

is not registered. He submits that the government enterprises do not

manufacture these articles, which were supplied by the petitioners' firm. He

refers to Annexure-3 which is letter dated 31.07.2001 and submits that the

Deputy Secretary, Health and Medicine, Education and Family Welfare,

communicated that the medicine shall be purchased on the basis of quotations

received from different suppliers, fixed the rate of the medicines, appliances,

machines instruments etc. and at the same time decision has also been taken

that medicine which is being manufactured by the government company is to

be purchased directly by the company. He submits that based on that letter the

case of the co-accused namely, Naresh Kumar Rastogi has already been

quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 896 of 2012 vide

judgment dated 28.06.2013.

5. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits

that allegations are there and the case has been rightly registered and the

learned court has rightly taken cognizance. She submits that T.T.K. company is

not authorized to give contract to M/s India Agency, Dhanbad. She submits

that the argument advanced herein by the learned counsel for the petitioner

are subject matter of trial.

6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It appears that

the case has been registered for purchase of medicine and a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court considered the letter dated 31.07.2001 in Cr.M.P. No. 896 of

2012 which was decided by order dated 28.06.2013 wherein para 6 it has been

held as under:-

"6. In the context of the submissions, one needs to take notice of the said letter as contained in Memo No. 280 (5) Swa. Dated 31/07/2001. From its perusal it does appear that on 27/03/2000, the Purchase Committee under the Chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner, Chhotanagpur Division, on the basis of the quotations received from different suppliers, fixed the rate of the medicines. appliances, machines, instruments etc. At the same time, decision had also been taken that the medicine, which is being manufactured by the Government company, is to be purchased directly from the company.

Putting emphasis rather placing reliance on that part of the decision taken in the meeting, plea is being taken that when the items as aforesaid, manufactured by the Government company Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, was supplied by the petitioner, an authorized distributor of the company, under the supply order, the petitioner did not do anything wrong. That plen gets substantiated from the said policy decision wherein it is quite specific that the medicine. manufactured by the Government enterprises is to be purchased directly from the company. In the instant case. Cloxacillin capsules manufactured by the Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited. hasbeen supplied by the petitioner when the supply order was placed before the company and on getting supply order, the petitioner was authorized by the company to supply the medicine at the rate, which had already been communicated by the company to different authorities of the Health Department and, thereby, even if the rate is higher than the rate fixed by the Purchase Committee, one cannot be said to have committed any offence as whatever was done that was done under the policy of the Government. In such situation, any prosecution of the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

7. In view of above, it appears that the case of the petitioner is

covered in the view of letter dated 31.07.2001 as the petitioner has supplied

medicine on the instruction of T.T.K. company and safeguard is there to the

petitioner in view of letter dated 31.07.2001 contained in Annexure-3. The

case of the petitioner is identical to the co-accused which has been decided by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 896 of 2012 by order dated

28.06.2023.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including cognizance

order dated 19.07.2010 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2003

(Special Case No. 24 of 2003) pending in the Court of learned Special Judge,

(ACB), Dumka, so far this petitioner is concerned, are quashed.

9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if

any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/