Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debashis Ghosh vs Union Of India on 2 April, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:540
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 426 of 2022
Debashis Ghosh
Versus
Union of India
For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Shahid Imam, Adv.
Mr. Md. Khairul, Adv.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Amajit Dey, Adv.
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv.
Heard on : 06.02.2026
Judgment on : 02.04.2026
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:-
1. The instant Criminal Revisional application under Section 401 read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the
correctness, legality and propriety of an order dated 24.09.2021
2
2026:CHC-AS:540
passed by the Learned Special Judge, (CBI) Court No. 1, Bichar
Bhawan Kolkata in SPL Case No. 04 of 2016 arising out of RC.
0102013A0008 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013 under Sections
120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC')
and under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. By the order impugned, the Trial Court rejected the prayer
for discharge from the case involved.
FACTS OF THE CASE: -
2. The essential facts, leading to the filing of this instant Criminal
Revisional application, are as under: –
a. The CBI/SPE/ACB/Kolkata registered an F.I.R., being No. RC
0102013A0008 of 2013 on 30.03.2013 on the basis of source
information alleging therein that Abhijit Gupta, the then Section
Engineer, S. E. Rly, Kharagpur and others have given undue
favour to the accused Private Firms M/S Efftronics Systems Pvt.
Ltd, M/S Aster Electrosoft Pvt. Ltd and M/S Ambitious
Enterprises, by allowing these firms to install Electronic Train
Indicator Boards (ETIBs) at the Andul-Baruia-Deulti stations,
Sankrail-Nalpur-Jakpur stations, and Tamluk-Belda-Jhargram-
Digha stations, all under the Kharagpur division.
b. Even without the integration of ETIBs with the Existing Public
Address systems and the incomplete work, the said officials of S.E.
32026:CHC-AS:540
Railway released the full payment along with security deposit and
performance guarantee to the accused contractors, thereby
committing offences U/S 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and
Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . As
a result, the S.E. Railway suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs.
12,44,762.34/-.
c. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet, CS No.
40/2014 on 31.12.1014 was filed against (i) Abhijit Gupta, the
then SSE/Tele/Wireless KGP, S.E. Railways, (ii) Sri Salil Ghosh,
partner of M/s Ambitious Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Sri Subrata
Mukherjee, constituted Attorney of M/s Ambitious Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd., and (iv) Debashis Ghosh, the then DSTE, KGP, S.E. Rly,
alleging the commission of offences u/s 120B/420 IPC and
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
d. The allegations against the petitioner in the instant case are that
he abused his official position and recorded inflated
measurements in the MB (Measurements Book), and further
certified the same. On the basis of the false measurements, the
contractor, M/s Ambitious Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., received inflated
payments for his bills, resulting in wrongful loss to the Railways.
e. It was also alleged that the Railway had issued a work order to
M/s Ambitious Enterprises at substantially higher rates compared
42026:CHC-AS:540
to Tata Nagar of CKP division. An excess amount was paid to the
firm (Contractor) due to wrong measurement of trenching,
subsequently correlated with data cable, power cable, HDPE pipe,
etc.
f. The tender was opened on 24.07.2009, and members had put their
initials on the tender offers. Thereafter, on 28.07.2009, a
summary was prepared and all offers/tenders, along with the
summary, were sent to the tender section at Kharagpur for the
preparation of a comparative statement and briefing note. A brief
note and comparative statements were prepared on 10.08.2009
and sent to the Finance Department for vetting on the same date.
g. The detailed estimate was technically sanctioned on 10.08.2009,
which was before the issuance of LOA (Letter of Acceptance) dated
01.12.2009, in favour of M/s. Ambitious Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
h. The tender Committee recommended acceptance of the offer of M/s
Ambitious Pvt. Ltd. for supply, installation, and commissioning of
ETIB at the aforesaid stations, and the same was accepted by the
Tender Accepting Authority. Accordingly, an LOA and Work Order
were issued for the aforesaid work in question and given to M/s
Aster Electrosoft Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, a contract/agreement was
signed between the S. E. Railways and the contractors for
executing the aforesaid work.
5
2026:CHC-AS:540
i. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had no role to play in
the initial planning, tendering and receipt of material and payment
thereof. He joined as a Divisional Signal & Telecom Engineer/Tele-
maintenance (DSTE), Kharagpur on 6th January, 2010. He did not
know such facts and circumstances of work orders.
j. The allegation against the Petitioner was that the cost of single-line
double-face (Trilingual) train Arrival/Departure Display Boards as
per RDSO specification no. RDSO/SPN/TC/61/2007 (Revision
2.0) was quoted Rs. 2,80,000/- at Chakradharpur Division of
South Eastern Railway, whereas for the same item, a rate of Rs.
5,05,000/- was quoted at Kharagpur Division.
k. In the above premise, the petitioner finds it necessary to mention
that while making their recommendation, it is the responsibility of
the Tender Committee to examine all relevant factors, such as the
existing workload on the lowest two or three tenders, their
capacities to execute further work and also whether the rates
quoted are reasonable and workable.
l. The petitioner was not present while dealing with the tender or
completion of work orders and had no role to play in the initial
planning, tendering, receipt and material and payment thereof. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners
6
2026:CHC-AS:540
stated that the instant proceeding is an abuse of the process of
law. Hence, this application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: –
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was a DSTE. His work does not extend to setting up,
commissioning, supervising, or maintaining ETIBs. The Petitioner is
under the technical Control of Sr. DSTE and works on the
instructions of the Senior DSTE. Nearly 90 per cent of the payments
had already been made in respect of the said schedule work before
the Petitioner joined.
4. It was submitted that the final bill, which came up during the
Petitioner’s tenure, is the subject matter of this case, which
establishes that the petitioner had no role in the initial planning,
tendering & receipt of material and payment thereof.
5. The contention of the Petitioner is that the case was initiated solely
on the allegation that the Railways had issued a work order to M/s.
Ambitious Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. at rates substantially higher than
those quoted at Tatanagar, under the Chakradharpur (CKP) Division.
However, upon investigation, the Investigating Authority recorded in
the charge sheet as follows:
“The cost of single line double face (Trilingual) train
arrival/departure display board as per RDSO Specification
No.RDSO/SPN/TC/61/2007 (Revision 2.0) was quoted
72026:CHC-AS:540
Rs.2,80,000/-at Chakradharpur Division of South Eastern
Railway whereas for the same item rate of Rs.5,05,000/- was
quoted at Kharagpur Division. But investigation also remarked
that in Kharagpur there was a condition in the Notice Inviting
Tender that the times has to be procured from RDSO approved
source, which is also one of the reasons for the variation in price
of Chakradharpur Division and Kharagpur Division.”
6. It is, therefore, evident that the very basis on which the FIR was
lodged stood explained during investigation. The Investigating Agency
itself found that the variation in price was attributable to the tender
condition mandating procurement from RDSO-approved sources, and
consequently failed to substantiate the allegations against the
petitioner. The foundational premise of the case thus stood
demolished.
7. Despite such clarification, which goes to the root of the matter, the
Investigating Agency proceeded with the investigation and ultimately
filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. This action, in the absence
of any incriminating material, appears to be arbitrary and amounts to
an abuse of process, giving rise to a case of wrongful and malicious
prosecution instituted without good faith.
8. Finally, it was submitted that the Petitioner was not a named accused
in the FIR; he has been falsely implicated in the present case, though
he had no role to play in any physical checking, testing and
8
2026:CHC-AS:540
measuring of the cable. All measuring, testing and checking were
executed before he joined as DSTE.
9. Therefore, the proceeding against the present petitioner is an abuse
of the process of law. To secure the ends of justice, it requires him to
be discharged by quashing of the proceedings in so far as the
petitioner is concerned; otherwise, the petitioner would greatly suffer
and be prejudiced.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/CBI: –
10. Learned counsel Mr. Dey, representing the CBI, vehemently opposed
the prayer of the petitioner and further submitted that the Petitioner
had played a role in the offence as alleged. During the investigation, it
was revealed that after finding the inflated payment with less work on
the ground, the S. E. Rly. recovered an amount of Rs. 10,12,194.67/-
from M/S Ambitious Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for 2 work orders vide
contract Agreement dated 20.03.2010, in pursuance of Para 51 (2) of
General Conditions of Contract Vol-2-2001, which deals with post-
payment audit. The Petitioner had certified the completion of the
aforesaid work. Rs. 2,32,567.67/-, along with the pending bills of the
aforesaid contractor is yet to be recovered.
11. It was further submitted that the petitioner was responsible for
conducting a test check of the work. He has also certified the
Measurement books. The bill was submitted on 03.02.2010. The final
9
2026:CHC-AS:540
bill was released on 04.08.2010 during his tenure; as such, the
petitioner was involved in the offence punishable under section U/S
120B read with 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
12. It was further submitted that during the course of fresh
measurements, it was revealed that the measurements, as recorded
in the MB, were false and inflated. These inflated measurements were
recorded in the MB by accused Shri Abhijit Gupta (A-1), which was
certified to be correct by accused Shri Debasish Ghosh and
countersigned by Sh. M. Santosh Kumar, representative of M/S Aster
Electrosoft Pvt Ltd, had claimed bills against these inflated
measurements in the MB; as such, the petitioner is required to face
trial to unearth the truth. Therefore, the present application is liable
to be dismissed.
DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THIS COURT: –
13. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and upon perusal of the records, especially the
complaint and charge sheet submitted in RC0102013A0008 dated
30/03/2013 against Shri Abhijit Gupta, the then Senior Section
Engineer/Tele/Wireless, Kharagpur Division, South Eastern Railway,
Kharagpur and others under sections 120B/420 of the IPC and
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, this court finds that the
10
2026:CHC-AS:540
allegations primarily relate to issuance of work orders for the supply
and installation of ETIBs at various stations under Howrah-
Kharagpur-Digha section, at substantially higher rates than those
prevailing in a comparable project executed shortly prior in the
Chakradharpur Division, S.E. Railway. It appears from the record
that M/s Ambitious Enterprises, had executed similar work at
Tatanagar, Rourkela and Jharsuguda stations at an accepted rate of
Rs. 71, 17, 349/-, whereas the estimate prepared by Pradip Kumar
Prasad and the present accused Abhijit Gupta for the Howrah-
Kharagpur-Digha section was Rs. 92,01,836/-, thereby giving rise to
the allegation of inflated estimation and possible financial
irregularity.
14. During the investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioner was
also very much involved in the measurement process, and the
measurements recorded in the MB were false and inflated. He should
have raised objection before final payment if there was false and
inflated measurement recorded in the MB. The said inflated
measurements were recorded by accused Shri Abhijit Gupta (A-1)
which were subsequently certified as correct by the present
petitioner, Shri Debasish Ghosh, on the basis of which, bills were
raised and payments claimed.
11
2026:CHC-AS:540
15. The principal contention of the petitioner is twofold: first, that he had
no role in the foundational aspects of the contract such as tendering,
rate fixation, or execution; and secondly, that the very basis of the
FIR, namely the alleged disparity in rates between Kharagpur
Division and Chakradharpur Division, stood satisfactorily explained
during the investigation itself. In this regard, it is significant that the
charge sheet records that the variation in price was attributable to a
specific tender condition requiring procurement from RDSO-approved
sources. This clarification materially weakens the foundational
allegation of undue favour or arbitrary rate fixation.
16. However, the scope of the present proceeding cannot be confined
merely to the validity of the initial tender process. The prosecution
has specifically attributed an active role to the petitioner in certifying
measurements and facilitating the release of the final bill. The CBI
has specifically alleged that the measurements recorded were false
and inflated, and that the petitioner certified those measurements.
Based on these certified measurements, payments were made to the
contractor.
17. This Court notes that certifying measurements is an important
responsibility. It is not just a routine task, because such certification
directly affects how much money is paid. If the measurements were
indeed inflated and were wrongly certified, it may amount to an
12
2026:CHC-AS:540
offence. During investigation, it established prima facie case against
the Petitioner.
18. In such circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the
continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process
of law. Involvement of the accused in the allegations requires him to
face trial to unearth the truth after recording evidence. Therefore, the
application found to be devoid of merit and requires dismissal.
19. Accordingly, CRR 426 of 2022 is, thus, dismissed. Connected
applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this Judgment and Order be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
22. All parties will act on the server copies of this Judgment and Order
uploaded on the official website of this Hon’ble High Court.
23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment and Order, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal and necessary formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
