The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a FIR against officers of the Public Works Department (PWD) by the Mumbai Police Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for irregularities in awarding contracts for the construction of a dam costing Rs. 92 crore.
In December 2014, the state government had ordered an open inquiry by the ACB into contracts for dam construction. Accordingly, the Thane Police ACB had launched a probe with respect to Balganga dam in Raigad’s Pen taluka.
The Thane Police ACB had asked the Kopri police station to register a case in this regard, in which 11 accused were booked under IPC sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) and relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is alleged that the partners in the Balganga dam and irrigation project tender used forged and fabricated documents in collusion with public servants, who have been named in the FIR. They presented inflated bills that led to losses of Rs. 92,63,42,110 to the state exchequer.
The petitioners' advocate said the first FIR is about the alleged role played by the partners of a firm in the tender floated for construction of the Balgana dam. The second FIR, registered in September 2015 by the Mumbai Police ACB , is related to the same transaction and is closely connected with the tender process, he said. Thus, the nature of allegations and transactions in both FIRS deserve to be quashed and set aside, he urged.
The special public prosecutor in the case said the transactions are similar, and each case needs to be considered accordingly. He also said considering the seriousness of the offences, the second FIR should not be quashed.
A division bench of Justices Naresh Patil and P.D. Naik said the seriousness of the offence requires thorough investigation, which is underway. “We find that distinct and different features of allegations are made in both FIRs and cannot be termed to have arisen out of the same transaction,” the court noted. The order read, “We have examined the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs. The version in the second FIR is different. Therefore it is permissible and we do not find that any prejudice would be caused if the two FIRs are independently investigated, thus we are not inclined to interfere and the petition is dismissed.”
