Summary
An Executive Engineer of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board was charged under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act over a contract with Ramjee Power Construction. After a Board meeting extended the contractor's time instead of terminating, he had prepared a 2007 note seeking instructions on appointing an arbitrator and waiving penalty, as the Advocate General had advised in similar matters. The arbitrator's interim award was later implemented by Board resolution after the Advocate General's opinion. The Special Judge refused discharge and the High Court dismissed revision. The Supreme Court discharged him. He played no part in the decisions, his note sought instructions in line with Board decisions and legal advice, he authorised no payment, and no illegal gratification was shown. Senior decision-makers had not been prosecuted.
Issues
- Whether an Executive Engineer who prepared a file note seeking instructions on appointing an arbitrator could be prosecuted for cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal misconduct over the later implementation of an arbitral award
- Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case to frame charges
Provisions considered
- Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applying the broad-probabilities test of Prafulla Kumar Samal, no grave suspicion against the appellant arose, so he was entitled to discharge. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988There was no entrustment, dishonest intent, illegal gratification or disproportionate assets, so the ingredients were not prima facie made out. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Sections 109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant was neither entrusted with funds nor deceived his superiors, so the charges failed at the threshold. (¶ 18)
Held
- The Board meeting chaired by the new Chairman dropped the earlier oral proposal to terminate the contract and extended time by mutual agreement with the contractor. The appellant was not part of that meeting or of the decision-making. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- His note sought instructions on appointing an arbitrator and waiving penalty in line with the Board's decision and the Advocate General's advice. The committee, the arbitrator's appointment and the award's implementation were decided by higher authorities after the Advocate General opined that the award should be implemented. Preparing the note created no culpability. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
- The officer who, as Finance Secretary, approved implementing the award later recommended prosecution as Vigilance Commissioner. Senior officials who took the decisions were not arrayed, and the attempt was to implicate the appellant for decisions he had no role in. (¶ 13)
- He did not make any payment. A co-accused's prosecution over the payment had been quashed, nothing incriminating was seized, and no illegal gratification or disproportionate assets were shown. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- At the charge stage the court must weigh broad probabilities and basic infirmities without mirroring the prosecution story. The material raised no grave suspicion, so the High Court erred in not exercising its revisional powers. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; the orders refusing discharge were set aside and the appellant was discharged in Special Case No. 02 of 2011.