PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 24-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
25
PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHA
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2022)
AUGUST 24, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, J. K. MAHESHWARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.109, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477A and
120B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(c) and
s. 13(1)(d) – Charges under – While giving effect to an award in
favour of RPCL, JSEB faced shortage of funds – JSEB decided to
make internal enquiry into handling the work contract given to
RPCL – On basis of the said enquiry, allegations of malpractice
and financial irregularity were levelled against the appellant and
some others – FIR was registered – Charge sheet was filed –
Appellant moved a discharge petition u/s.239 of Cr.PC, which was
dismissed by the Special Judge – Revision was also dismissed by
the High Court – On appeal, held: The decisions in the board
meetings were taken with mutual consent of the parties – Appellant
was neither involved nor was a part in the proposal or the decision
making process – Appellant had merely prepared the agenda for
appointment of an arbitrator and had nothing to do with approval
of award and payment of money – Prima-facie there is nothing which
affixes culpability or constitutes commission of offence including
mens-rea on the part of the appellant – Appellant was neither
entrusted with funds of JSEB nor he had fraudulently or dishonestly
deceived senior officials of the JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL
or any wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of illegal gratification
or disproportionate assets were found against the appellant –
Consequently, appellant is discharged in the criminal proceedings.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The  perusal  of  material  indicates  that  because
it  was difficult for the JSEB to implement the award due to
financial difficulty, a roving and fishing enquiry was conducted, in
consequence of which, Secretary, JSEB vide letter dated
30.07.2010 and then Vigilance Commissioner vide letter dated
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 25
25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
03.09.2010, requested the DGP, Vigilance Bureau to register an
FIR against the Appellant. This Court fails to understand as to
why the same person, who had approved the implementation of
award as a member of the Board, had later as Vigilance
Commissioner, recommended initiation of prosecution against
the Appellant, who had merely prepared the agenda for
appointment of an arbitrator and had nothing to do with the
approval of the award and payment of money. In view of the
aforesaid, if at all any culpability had to be assigned, it should
have been assigned after examining the role of senior authorities
who were involved in the decision-making process. Astonishingly,
most of the senior officials, who approved various decisions
regarding extension of time, appointment of arbitrator and
implementation of arbitration award and consequent payment to
RPCL have not been arrayed as accused. In our considered view,
prima-facie there is nothing which affixes culpability or constitutes
commission of offence including mens-rea on the part of the
Appellant. It seems that an attempt has been made to implicate
the Appellant for the decisions in which prima-facie, he did not
have any role to play, nor do his acts establish any culpability
regarding the alleged offences. [Para 13][36-D-H]
2. If at all there were issues with respect to the
maintainability of the award due to the provisions of the contract,
particularly as per the contended negative covenant, the same
should have been highlighted by the Attorney General, especially
when his opinion was expressly sought. This Court finds it difficult
to accept that the opinion of the learned AG was prejudiced merely
because he was not made aware of the negative covenant
pertaining to price variation by an engineer of the JSEB who has
limited exposure in the domain of law. This Court has no hesitation
in stating that AG being the highest law officer of a State, is
competent to advise the State on legal matters after due diligence,
taking into consideration all relevant factors and material.
Therefore, the Appellant cannot be said to influence or impact
the opinion of the learned AG which had resulted in approval of
JSEB to implement the award. Hence, in considered view of this
Court, it cannot be inferred that the Appellant led the AG and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
27
JSEB to implement the award with fraudulent or dishonest
intention to cause loss to JSEB and bene

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.