Aditya Nashier v. CBI

order condition.

¶10The case of the Petitioner repeatedly is that the work of JE Plant and JE (Site) are totally different. The work of JE (Plant) is to receive bitumen and get the ready mix prepared at the Hot Mix Plant, where after the work of JE (Site) starts which is only at the execution site. JE (Site) is responsible for the receiving of the ready mix at the execution site and laying of the dense carpeting. It is further stated that MB books at the Plant and the execution site are different and the Petitioner has no concern whatsoever with regard to MB books at the Plant. There is no allegation that dense carpet was not laid or there was any short fall in the same.

¶11Learned counsel for the CBI has relied upon the statement of PW15, Rakesh Dhondiyal Executive Engineer, Bridges-III, MCD to state that the Petitioner has signed MB No. 1007 at pages No. 45 to 52 and 58 to 62 regarding the work of Improvement/ Strengthening of 18 M (60') ROW in Dr. Lohia Industrial Area. Sub Head: Imp and Strengthening of 60' ROW roads in block A & B on 30th April 1998, 1st May 1998, 2nd May 1998, 4th May 1998, 5th May 1998, 6th May 1998, 8th May 1998, 12th May 1998, 13th May 1998, 15th May 1998. Though the charge-sheet clearly say that the Petitioner was JE (Site), however the role of the Petitioner as JE (Site) and what connection he has at the Plant where the bitumen is received, has not been explained by any of the prosecution witnesses. The charge sheet is silent on this aspect and so is the learned counsel for the CBI.

¶12It is well settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and not expect the defence to lead evidence on these aspects. Further MB 1007 relied upon by the learned counsel for the CBI also talks about improvement of roads and carpeting therein. It is not clarified that the same is in regard to bitumen having not been received at the site. Further, there is no allegation that no carpeting had been done at the spot or the bitumen used was deficient in nature. Though I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that it will be for the defence to explain their role during trial, however considering the fact that the trial is at the fag end and the Petitioner has also led his evidence it would be inappropriate for me to return any finding at this stage. Needless to state it will be for the prosecution to prove its case against the Petitioner as to the role assigned to him, if any.

¶13Petition is dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA)

JUDGE APRIL 03, 2014

'ga'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 972/2011 % Reserved on: 21st March, 2014 Decided on: 3rd April, 2014 ADITYA NASHIER ..... Petitioner Through Mr. D.S. Kohli, Mr. A.S. Anand, Advs. versus CBI ..... Respondent Through Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC for CBI with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Mr. Jaideep Tandan, Ms. Somi, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. By the present petition the Petitioner assails the orders dated 15th November, 2007 and 27th November, 2007 whereby the Petitioner was directed to be charged and consequently a charge was framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 120B/420/471/468 IPC and Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the PC Act). 2. The Petitioner had first filed a revision petition before this Court which was dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in Anur Kumar Jain vs. CBI, 178 (2011) DLT 501 wherein it was held that no revision against an order of framing charge by the learned Special Judge under PC Act was maintainable. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. The case of the Petitioner in short is that charge has been framed against the Petitioner without any basis, there being no material against him. The prosecution witnesses have not clarified the distinction in the work of Junior Engineer (Site) and Junior Engineer (Plant). The Petitioner being JE (Site) was only responsible for execution of work at site and not at the plant where the bitumen was received and the ready mix was prepared. There is no allegation that the work at the site was not executed or there was any error in the execution of the work. The charge-sheet in order to confuse the two, in Para 15 & 16 of the charge-sheet clubs the JEs of both the Plant and Site thus creating confusion. Reliance is placed on Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar and Ors AIR 1979 SC 366; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jatinder Bhimraj Bijja AIR 1990 SC 1962, Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 564 and Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs. The State 2007 (2) JCC 1489. The Court may though not appreciate the evidence but has to sift the material against each accused at that stage. Countering the arguments against the learned counsel for the CBI relying upon Satish Mehra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2013 Crl.LJ 411 SC it is stated that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 can quash the proceedings even at an advanced stage of trial. It is further stated that the Petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay in disposal of the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI at the outset has relied upon the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 351 to contend that since the trial is at the fag end and defence evidence is in progress, this Court will not interrupt the proceedings and decide the present petition. Learned counsel for the CBI points out towards the statement of PW17 Deepak Mukhopadhyay wherein it is stated that the mix of bitumen mecadum is manufactured in the hot mix plant of the contractor and then carried to the site of the work by tippers. The mix is then laid on the road by mechanical pavers. Mr. Sharma further relying upon the statement of PW17 states that JE is responsible for 100% check of the contractor's work and measurement in the MB. He states that since in the statement of PW17 no distinction has been carried out between the work of JE (Plant) and JE (Site), thus JE (Site) is also responsible for the measurement in the MB book or the Contractor's book. 5. Relying upon PW10 learned counsel for the CBI states that on being shown the invoices PW10 Nitin Bhatnagar states that the invoices of IOC officials have been forged. As per the NIT condition fresh receipt of the bitumen in original has to be submitted by the Contractor to the Department as proof of purchase from the Oil companies. No receipt of any other dealer/ distributor/ stockist etc. is accepted. This is one