A.Selvam v. The State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CRR/27/2023 A.Selvam Vs The State Mrs. Anjili Nag ... for the revisionist Ms.A.S.Zinu ... for the respondent January, 22, 2024 [AKB] Item No.6 The subject matter of the present revisional application relates to the order dated 14.11.2023 rejecting application of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Special Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. Mrs. Nag, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the present petitioner namely A. Selvam submitted that, accused, A.
Selvam was the Senior Investigator in the department and he had only made note regarding procurement of equipments on basis of requisitions received from the different sections and on the basis of the said notes, the purchase committee had invited tenders and subsequently accepted the same after observing all codal formalities and he had no control or supervision over the price or other technical aspect of the articles purchased after origination of note and the list of documents annexed alonwith the chargesheet does not disclose involvement of accused which resulted in monetary loss to the govt. department in any manner due to the act of accused.
Learned advocate for the state opposed such contentions and submitted that it was the duty of the present petitioner to check the rates also as to whether they were compatible and were in consonance with the market prices available.
None of the documents under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C has been enclosed along with the present revisional application, and I find that thirteen persons have been implicated in this case, who either belong to the purchase committee or the procurement section. The tender was called by the Purchase committee, as such, if after the tender was floated and a particular company/bidder was allotted the tender in that case whether the procurement department had any role to play or not in respect of the price which is the subject matter of consideration, was not brought to the notice of the learned Court while the application was moved on behalf the state.
State is directed to present the relevant documents and or supply the same if not already supplied to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused/petitioner. At this stage of consideration of charges it is the duty of the court to see whether there is some suspicion or grave suspicion and as to whether a bridge was established between the two different departments, that is procurement department and purchase department in respect of the price component, for establishing a conspiracy for implicating the petitioner.
Learned trial court would check what documents have been relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case in respect of the petitioner to implicate him, as a consistent stand has been taken by the petitioner that he is associated with the procurement department and he had no role to play so far as the process of tender and the successful bidder being allotted the tender or the price component associated with the goods purchased.
It is further observed that this particular case is being remanded only for the reason, that the stand of the state is that the goods which were put on tender had a requirement, however, the prices which have been fixed after the tender process was completed and disbursement were made were in excess of the market prices at the relevant point of time.
Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2023 so far as present petitioner is concerned is set aside. The learned trial court on the aforesaid issues will consider the documents and arrive at its own findings, independent
without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.
Accordingly, CRR/27/2023 is partly allowed.
Learned trial court would rehear the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C and pronounce its verdict within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order.
[Tirthankar Ghosh, J. ]