Shri. Newazesh Ali v. The State (CBI)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/21/2025 Shri Newazesh Ali Vs.

The State (CBI) Ms. Nisha Tiwari .... for the petitioner Mr. R. P. Gobind Mr. Harish Kumar ... for the State (CBI) March 11, 2025 [SR] Item No.4 1.

The petitioner was an erstwhile Superintending Engineer, {Planning) Andaman Public Works Department, Port Blair. He has been named as accused with few others in a charge sheet under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The gist of the allegation is that, while he was in office, he was in conspiracy with M.M. Singh Sandhu, the then the Executive Engineer working directly under the petitioner issued thirteen work orders between 4th June, 2012 and 02nd July, 2012 in favour of M/s Noble Eco System Pvt. Limited, Chennai and few others without following the procedure laid down in Chapter VI of General Financial Rules which mandatorily to be followed by all departments, Government of India in relation to public procurement.

3.

It was alleged that the work orders were issued ostensibly to meet immediate requirement although the nature and kind of work for which the work orders were issued, cannot be classified as "emergency work" as provided under the CPWD Manual.

4.

The installations made by the entities were found to be defective using inferior materials. The APWD in the process made payment of Rs.35,85,204/- to such entities for such defective works..

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that mere contravention of the standard rule and procedure may not amount to a criminal act, inasmuch as at the highest it could be an error of judgment with no intention to cause any financial loss to the employer. Any motive for unlawful gain is not established in the FIR.

6.

This Court is informed that the Trial Court has fixed the matter for framing of charge. It would not be advisable to make any comment with regard to the nature of the offence disclosed in the FIR. I am of the view that at the time of framing of charge, the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge and argue that even if the statement in the FIR along with evidence is considered, the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner including any other ground that may be permissible under the law, to be raised at the time of framing of charges. 7.

With the above observations, the application is disposed of.

( Soumen Sen, J. )