Uttarakhand High Court
H On’Ble Pa Nk A J Pur Ohit vs Unknown on 23 December, 2024
Office N ot e s, COURT'S OR JUD GES'S ORD ERS
r e por t s,
or de r s or
pr oce e din gs
SL.
Date or dir e ct ions
No
a nd
2024:UHC:9876
Re gist r a r 's
or de r w it h
Signa t ur e s
C528 No.930 of 2024
H on'ble Pa nk a j Pur ohit , J.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, for t he
applicant s.
2. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, for t he
CBI / respondent s.
3. By m eans of t he present C528 applicat ion of
t he BNSS, 2023, t he applicant s have put a challenge
t o t he ent ire proceedings of t he CBI Case No.01 of
2014, ” CBI Vs. Shailendra Grover and ot hers” , under
Sect ions 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of I PC read wit h
Sect ions 13 ( 2) , 13( 1) ( d) of t he Prevent ion of
Corrupt ion Act , 1988, pending in t he court of Special
Judge, CBI , Dehradun.
4. I t is t he cont ent ion of t he learned counsel for
t he applicant s t hat a not ice invit ing t ender was
issued on 06.04.2009, and t he t ender was allot t ed in
favour of t he applicant / com pany on 16.07.2009. I t is
also cont ended by t he learned counsel for t he
applicant s t hat t he work has already been com plet ed
in t he year 2010. Som et im es in t he year 2012, a
com plaint was m ade by one Shri Ghasiram , Chief
Engineer, of t he Border Road Organizat ion, alleging
large scale of m alpract ices in t he aforesaid cont ract .
5. Aft er conduct ing t he prelim inary inquiry by t he
CBI , t he First I nform at ion Report was lodged by t he
CBI on 22.09.2012, against t he applicant and ot hers,
under Sect ions 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of I PC read
wit h Sect ions 13 ( 2) , 13( 1) ( d) of t he Prevent ion of
Corrupt ion Act , 1988, and aft er invest igat ion t he CBI
has subm it t ed it s charge- sheet on 26.02.2014.
6. On t he said charge- sheet , t he cognizance was
t aken by t he learned Special Judge, CBI , on
30.07.2014, and t he t rial proceeded against t he
applicant s and ot her co- accused, and no charges
under Sect ions 13 ( 2) , 13( 1) ( d) of t he Prevent ion of
Corrupt ion Act , 1988, were fram ed against t he
applicant no.2, who claim t o be t he Direct or of t he
com pany and a privat e person.
7. I t is also cont ended by t he learned counsel for
t he applicant s t hat even if t he ent ire FI R is t aken as
a t rut h, no offence is m ade out against t he
applicant s. Against t his, learned counsel for t he CBI
subm it t ed t hat t he cont ract , which was given t o t he
applicant s, was of supplying t he m at erials for
const ruct ion of t he border road of Joshim at h- Malari,
Dist rict Cham oli, and t he m at erial which t he
applicant s were t o supply was st one grit s of cert ain
specificat ions, and t he specificat ions were already
m ent ioned in t he t ender docum ent s. I t is furt her
subm it t ed by t he learned counsel for t he CBI t hat
t he applicant s had subm it t ed fake bills from t he
st one- crusher sit uat ed at Dist rict Haridwar, and
when t he inquiry was m ade, it was found t hat t he
grit s which were supplied by t he applicant s was
procured from t he place where t he road was under
const ruct ion and t hereby t he m at erial supplied by
t he applicant s, whereof, were found sub- st andard
and t he t est report s, affidavit of supplier were found
fake aft er invest igat ion, and t herefore, t he charge-
sheet was subm it t ed against t he applicant s.
8. Having heard t he learned counsel for t he
part ies, and having perused t he FI R, t his Court is of
t he opinion t hat t he cont ent ion raised by t he learned
counsel for t he applicant s t hat if t aken t he ent iret y
of t he prosecut ion case t o be t rue, no case is m ade
out against t he applicant s, are t ot ally m isconceived
and unfounded.
9. This Court is of t he view t hat it is aft er m ore
t han 9 years, t he applicant s are before t his Court
challenging t he ent ire proceedings of t he case, in
t his view of m at t er, t he int erference is not
warrant ed.
10. From t he perusal of t he m at erial available on
record, it t ranspires t hat t he m at t er can only be
scrut inized by t he evidence during t rial, and
t herefore, t his Court cannot int erfere at t his st age.
Accordingly, t he C528 applicat ion is dism issed.
( Pa nk a j Pur ohit , J.)
23.12.2024
NR/