NAGESHWAR YADAV V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI

Cr.M.P./980/2012

AI Insights

The case revolves around allegations against Nageshwar Yadav, a partner in M/s Narayan Construction, who was accused of forming a cartel with M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. to manipulate the tender process for road construction works, leading to embezzlement and wrongful gains. The petitioner challenged the cognizance and charge framing orders, arguing lack of direct involvement and drawing parallels with co-accused whose proceedings were quashed. However, the court found substantial evidence against Yadav, distinguishing his case from those of the co-accused, and upheld the charges.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687233 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Shubhankar Biswa Vs. Sandeep Mehta, Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988, Competition Act, 2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: JASWINDER MAZUMDAR; KUMAR NARAYAN
• Keywords: Cognizance of offence; Criminal conspiracy; Embezzlement; Fake bills; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Tender process; Formation of cartel; Dummy bidder
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(d); 62; 468; 420; 471; 120B; 120A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 980 of 2012 Nageshwar Yadav, son of Sri Devi Yadav, resident of P.T.C Road, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh … … … Petitioner Versus Union of India through C.B.I … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jaswinder Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Basant Narayan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate --- 15/23.01.2020 1. Heard Mrs. Jaswinder Majumdar along with Mr. Kumar Basant Narayan, Advocates, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party CBI. 3. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. was initially filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with R.C. No. 11(A)/2009-(R) and also for quashing the order dated 02.02.2011, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 120B read with Sections 420,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. During the pendency of this case I.A. (Cr.) No. 7007 of 2019 was filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to amend the petition in order to challenge the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi who has framed 2 charges against the petitioner under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner never filed any petition for discharge before the learned court below and the order framing charge has already been challenged in this case in I.A. (Cr.) No. 7007 of 2019 which has been allowed vide order dated 05.08.2019. Thus, in the present case the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner including order taking cognizance as well as order framing charge are under challenge. Arguments of the petitioner 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R itself was filed pursuant to order passed by the High Court. She further submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner in connection with fake bills of Bitumen. The work was awarded in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. and the fake Bitumen bills were submitted by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. and/or their Officers/Director, but so far as the petitioner is concerned, he neither had any role in the execution of the work nor had any role in connection with the fake bills and payment in connection with the work executed by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the partner of M/s Narayan Construction, Hazaribagh who is alleged to have formed a cartel with the Director of M/s Classic Coal Construction Private Ltd. and facilitated M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. in getting tender in relation with Agreement No. 12F2/2004-05 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst them. 7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order refusing to discharge the co-accused namely Jyotindra Kumar has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2015 passed in Criminal Revision No.768 of 2014. It is submitted 3 that Jyotindra Kumar was the partner of another firm namely, M/s Sidhartha Construction against whom also similar allegations as that of the present petitioner was made. The specific case of the present petitioner is that his case is fully covered by the judgment passed in the case of Jyotindra Kumar. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to another judgment dated 11.02.2014 passed by this Court in the case of co-accused namely Gokul Agarwal in Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2013 whereby this Court has allowed the petition challenging the order refusing to discharge. The learned counsel submits that Gokul Agarwal was one of the Directors of M/s Bharat Vanijya Eastern (P) Ltd., Kolkata against whom similar allegations have been levelled alleging that M/s Bharat Vanijya Eastern (P) Ltd., Kolkata had formed cartel with M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. in connection with tender of another agreement. The learned counsel has submitted that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the case of Gokul Agarwal also and in fact the judgment passed in the case of Gokul Agarwal (supra) was followed by this Court in the case of Jyotindra Kumar(supra). 9. The learned counsel has also referred to another judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ripu Sudan Dubey, who was the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh and submits that the criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance against co- accused Ripu Sudan Dubey was quashed by this court vide order dated 27.04.2012 passed in Cr.M.P No.1136 of 2011. 10. The learned counsel submits that even if the allegation of forming any cartel and the allegation that M/s Narayan Construction stood as a dummy bidder is taken to be correct, the same does not indicate any criminal conspiracy by the petitioner for the purposes of commission of the alleged offence. The learned counsel submits that the conspiracy has 4 been defined under Section 120A of Indian Penal Code and the basic ingredients of conspiracy, is totally missing, so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has been made accused only by referring to the allegation of conspiracy under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code although there is no allegation of any active role or any overt act against the petitioner in the allegation of formation of cartel or in the matter of alleged offence committed by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd and its/officers/directors and the government officials. She submits that since the case of the partner Jyotindra Kumar(supra) of another firm, has already been quashed by this Court, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view so far as the present petitioner is concerned. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 15 SCC 541 (Shubhankar Biswa Vs. Sandeep Mehta) to submit that the plea of parity vis a vis that co-accused cannot be brushed aside by saying that Article 14 does not apply to criminal cases if otherwise the case of the petitioner is found to be on the same footing as that of the co accused namely Jyotindra Kumar(supra) whose criminal proceeding has been quashed by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the term ‘cartel’ has been defined under the Competition Act, 2002 and the definition of the term ‘cartel’ has been considered by this Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against the co-accused. He further refers to Section 19 of the said Competition Act, 2002 to submit that the competition commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to consider and decide the matter relating to contravention of the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 and the criminal courts have no role to play in the matter. He further submits that a reference can be made by the Central Government for seeking an opinion in connection with the alleged violation of the 5 provisions of Competition Act, 2002 and in absence of such reference in connection with the present case, no criminal proceedings alleging formation of cartel can be initiated and continued against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that as the entire allegation against the petitioner relates to formation of cartel and no more, therefore the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner by referring to Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is itself an abuse of the process of law and in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner be set aside. 13. The learned counsel has referred to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 (Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao) para 24 to submit that the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. He submits that in absence of any material showing an agreement as required for alleging criminal conspiracy in the present case, no criminal case is made out under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 14. She also referred to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 15 SCC 560 para 25 to submit that framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire records and documents placed therewith before the court and if the court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to such prosecution under the provisions of the Code or any other law for the time being in force, the accused is required to be discharged. He submits that on the one hand, no offence is made out against the petitioner and on the other hand, the allegation, if any, regarding formation of cartel is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authority under the 6 Competition Act, 2002, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is fit to be quashed and set-aside. Arguments of the opposite party 15. The learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, submits that although at the initial stage of filing of the F.I.R., the allegation was made in connection with large scale embezzlement of public money relating to execution of work under Road Construction Department, but after investigation, larger conspiracy was found and it was found that even at the stage of entering into the agreement, the second bidder for each work entered into criminal conspiracy with the common bidder of the various works, namely, M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited by forming a cartel and becoming a dummy bidder, in order to facilitate award of the work to M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited. This act by itself facilitated the work to be awarded to M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited, who in turn, raised fake bills of bitumen and embezzled huge public money. He further submits that merely because the allegation in relation to formation of cartel can also be inquired into by the authority under the Competition Act, 2002, that by itself does not mean that no criminal offence can arise out of the alleged transactions, if the basic ingredients of alleged offence under various provisions of Indian Penal Code is also made out. He has referred to Section 62 of the Competition Act, 2002 to submit that the provision of Competition Act, 2002 is in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. He submits that the legislature has consciously incorporated Section 62 in the Competition Act, 2002 to ensure that any violation of any other law, if found in any transaction, the proceedings under other laws are not excluded if the essential ingredients relating to such law is present in a case. 7 16. So far as specific role of the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to the statement of the petitioner recorded in the case-diary under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and submits that the statement of the petitioner is fully supported by statements of other witnesses including the officers of the post-office which clearly indicate that the petitioner had played active role in the commission of offence and there was already a meeting of mind between the petitioner and the co-accused M/s Classic Coal Construction Company (P) Ltd. and accordingly, prima facie, the basic ingredient of criminal conspiracy to commit the alleged offence is made out against the petitioner. 17. He also submits that the case of the petitioner is on different footing from that of Jyotindra Kumar (petitioner is Criminal Revision No. 768 of 2014), in as much as, in the charge-sheet itself, an active role has been alleged against the petitioner. He submits that no active role was alleged as against Jyotindra Kumar, and accordingly there is no parity between the petitioner and Jyotindra Kumar. 18. So far as the case of Gokul Agrawal is concerned, this Court recorded in Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2013 that though it is the case of the prosecution that the company of the Gokul Agrawal had formed cartel, but it never happens to be the case of the C.B.I that there was any kind of agreement in between M/s Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Ltd., Kolkata and M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited to stop other bidders from participating so that they may acquire monopoly in the field. Therefore, the C.B.I. may not be correct in levelling the accusation against Gokul Agrawal that his company had formed cartel. It was also recorded by this Court that there was no specific allegation against Gokul Agrawal being Director of the company, to have done anything so as to attract offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code or forgery or even an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in order 8 to draw vicarious liability, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegation which will attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. He submits that the case of Gokul Agarwal was on a different footing as he was made an accused only because he was the director of the company, against whom certain allegations were made. Since there was no role played by Gokul Agarwal, this court quashed the criminal proceedings against Gokul Agarwal. 19. The learned counsel, by referring to the judgment passed in the case of co-accused, namely, Ripu Sudan Dubey in Cr.M.P No.1136 of 2011, submits that the case of Ripu Sudan Dubey stands on different footing. He was a government servant and had entered into agreement with M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited in connection with two works on behalf of the government. He had no role to play in the matter of decision regarding award of contract or in connection with payment of forged bills of bitumen in connection with the work to M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited. He was being prosecuted for the reason that, in spite of knowing that both the bidders i.e. M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited and M/s Siddhartha Construction, Hazaribagh were hand in gloves in facilitating award of work in favour of M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited, whose bid amount was excessive, and it was held that there was no fault on his part in awarding the contract to the company on much higher rate and as such, it was held that there was no culpability on the part of Ripu Sudan Dubey. 20. He submits that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, specific role has been alleged against him in the commission of offence and there is enough material against the petitioner to put him on trial and more than prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner. 21. At the end, the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the case of the petitioner stands on different 9 footing when compared to the case of co-accused persons whose criminal proceedings have been quashed by this Court in different cases. He further submits that the impugned order is an order refusing to discharge and in view of the materials collected during investigation, more than prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, which does not call for any interference in this application. He submits that the learned court below has not committed any illegality and /or perversity in taking cognizance and framing charges against the petitioner. He refers to various paragraphs of the case diary where the statement of the petitioner as well as statement of witnesses as well as other co-accused have been recorded. 22. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party that the trial has begun and number of witnesses have already been examined and it is submitted that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings. Findings of this Court 23. Upon perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that the F.I.R was filed in compliance of order dated 30.06.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.803 of 2009. Pursuant to the said order a preliminary enquiry was taken up into the allegation of large scale irregularities and embezzlement of crores of rupees by government officers of Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, contractors and other persons in the matter of purported procurement of Bitumen for construction of road by private contractors and when the enquiry prima facie revealed criminality in the matter, the F.I.R was instituted. It is alleged that during the period 2002 to 2007, the accused entered into criminal conspiracy amongst themselves with M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. and other unknown and M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd submitted false/bogus invoices showing procurement of Bitumen for execution of 7 contractual works awarded to M/s 10 Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. through tender process which caused wrongful gain to the contractors and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. All the 305 bitumen invoices submitted by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. in the 7 works in question were alleged to be fake and forged. 24. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted vide Charge Sheet No.1 of 2011 against Sri Ripu Sudan Dubey, the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh and 8 other government servants of Road Construction Department of Hazaribagh and 8 other private persons which includes the petitioner. 25. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation relates to the work Agreement No.12F2/2004-05. It has been stated by the petitioner that he was one of the partners of M/s Narayan Construction, Hazaribagh. 26. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been inter alia, alleged in the charge sheet at the time of submission of tender relating to work agreement no. 12F2/2004-05 as follows:- Investigation further disclosed that, even at the time of submission of the tender, the contractor M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. and the second bidder M/s Narayan Construction, PTC Road, Matwari, Hazaribagh connived with each other. They, with dishonest and fraudulent intention, formed a cartel to get the tender awarded in favour of M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. Bank Drafts of Rs.10,000/- each for obtaining Tender documents for both the bidders were purchased by M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. Along with the tender, M/s. Narayan Construction submitted Post Office Time Deposit worth Rs.1,21,000/- vide no.330125077 as Earnest Money Deposit. The Post Office Time Deposit was purchased on 09/03/2005 from the Hindpiri Post Office, Ranchi in the name of Shri Nageshwar Yadav, PTC Road, Matwari. The said Postal Time Deposit was also shown in the books of M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd., which made it evident that the amount of Rs.1,21,000/- was invested on behalf of M/s. Narayan Construction, Hazaribagh by M/s. Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. who with the support of M/s. Narayan Construction, Hazaribagh got the tender. 11 27. Thus, this Court finds that at the time of filing of the F.I.R, the allegation was made in connection with large scale irregularities and embezzlement of crores of rupees in connection with the execution of various works relating to Road Construction Department. However, at the time of filing of the charge sheet, a larger conspiracy was alleged by stating that even at the time of submission of tender by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd., the second bidder, who participated in the respective tender entered into criminal conspiracy and formed a cartel and facilitated the award of work in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. The present petitioner is partner of one such firm, namely, M/s Narayan Construction. It is alleged that in the tender process M/s Narayan Construction was a dummy bidder sponsored by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd and the time deposit submitted by M/s Narayan Construction as earnest money was purchased in the name of the petitioner and it was also shown in the books of M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd which made it evident that the money invested by M/s Narayan Construction for the purposes of tender was actually invested and sponsored by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. 28. The case diary in the present case has been produced by the opposite party and the learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to a number of pages of the case diary showing the role of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence including the statement of this petitioner which has been recorded in page 71 of the case diary. The petitioner in his statement has categorically stated that he was the partner of M/s Narayan Construction and has clearly stated that his firm participated in the tender and EMD vide time deposit pass book worth Rs. 1,21,000/- was arranged by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd because the tender was filed by him in support of M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. He has 12 stated the aforesaid when he was confronted with the declaration of M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd in the income tax department where the said time deposit was shown in their account. He has further stated that the time deposit pass book was neither received back by him nor by any of his staff and he did not know as to who received back the same. He has clearly stated that even the cost of the tender paper was borne by M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd. The statement of the petitioner is also supported by the statements of the other witnesses from the postal department including one Manhar Verma, Ram Narayan Singh and Shri Madan Pandey. The aforesaid are some of the witnesses who have supported the allegations made against the petitioner that he was instrumental and participated actively in conspiracy inter alia with M/s Classic Coal Construction (P) Ltd., in commission of the alleged offence and dishonestly supported in getting the tender and the petitioner along with other co-accused committed the alleged offence. In view of the statement of the petitioner supported by the statement of the various witnesses as recorded in the case diary, this Court finds that prima facie there is an allegation of overt act against the petitioner supported by documentary evidences showing connivance with Shri Pawan Kumar Singh of M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited and others in the matter of managing tender by participation of his partnership firm namely, M/s Narayan Construction as a dummy bidder, so that it could be awarded to M/s Classic Coal Construction Private Limited. 29. It further appears that no such corresponding allegation of any overt act was there in connection with co-accused, Mr. Jyotindra Kumar who was also the partner of M/s Sidhartha Construction who was involved in another work order. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the case of Jyotindra Kumar stands on different footing from that of the 13 petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim any parity with the case of Mr. Jyotindra Kumar, whose case has been quashed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 768 of 2014 vide order dated 26.11.2015. 30. So far as the case of the co-accused, Gokul Agrawal is concerned, he was the Director of Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata and in connection with another contract, it was alleged that M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited formed a cartel with Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata in order to grab one of the contract mentioned in the First Information Report. This Court while deciding the case of Gokul Agrawal held that simply for the reason that the petitioner’s company happens to be a dummy bidder, the petitioner’s company cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or forgery in absence of any act forming necessary ingredients for constituting offence of forgery or cheating. Further, the court found that Mr. Gokul Agrawal was made accused in the capacity of the Director of the company and it was held that whatever act was done, it was done by the company namely Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Limited, Kolkata and not by the petitioner in its individual capacity and that the question which arose before the court was as to whether the petitioner can be prosecuted on the principle of vicarious liability for commission of offence allegedly committed by the company. While answering this question, this Court held that the petitioner could not be held vicariously liable for commission of offence committed by the company and accordingly, quashed the order refusing to discharge Gokul Agrawal. The aforesaid judgement passed in the case of Gokul Agrawal also does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever considering the allegations based on materials collected during investigation, some of which have been 14 mentioned above. It appears that the petitioner has been made accused for his acts in connection with the alleged conspiracy so that the tender could be awarded in favour of M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited at much higher rate and thereby causing wrongful loss to the government and wrongful gain to the other co-accused including M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited. 31. So far as the case of co-accused namely Ripu Sudan Dubey, is concerned, his case also stands on different footing. He was a government servant and had entered into agreement with M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited in connection with two works on behalf of the government. It has been held by this court that he had no role to play in the matter of decision regarding award of contract or in connection with payment of forged bills of bitumen in connection with the work to M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited. It has also been held that he was being prosecuted for the reason that, in spite of knowing that both the bidders i.e. M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited and M/s Siddhartha Construction, Hazaribagh were hand in gloves in facilitating award of work in favour of M/s Classic Coal Constriction Private Limited, whose bid amount was excessive, there was no fault on his part in awarding the contract to the company on much higher rate and as such, it was held that there was no culpability on the part of Ripu Sudan Dubey. The allegations against the petitioner is totally different from that of Ripu Sudan Dubey and accordingly the judgement passed in the case of Ripu Sudan Dubey does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para 24 of the judgment reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI v. K. Narayana Rao which is quoted below: 24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to 15 conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. 33. This Court finds that there is allegation against the petitioner and co-accused M/s. Classic Coal Construction Company/its Director showing an agreement to act in such a manner so that the bid could be awarded in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction Company and it is alleged that the bid by the petitioner/firm of the petitioner was sponsored by M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Ltd./ its Director. The allegations on record are sufficient to constitute prima facie case of criminal conspiracy against the petitioner and co- accused in which the petitioner is accused of active participation. Accordingly, at this stage, the said judgement reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 does not help the petitioner. 34. This Court is also of the considered view that at the stage of taking cognizance of offence and at the stage of order framing charge, only a prima facie case is required to be seen considering the materials collected during investigation. This Court is of the considered view that considering the allegations 16 and materials against the petitioner, it cannot be said, as argued by the petitioner, that ex-facie no case is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations made in the charge-sheet is taken to be correct. This Court is of the considered view, at this stage, that more than prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned court below has rightly taken cognizance and rightly framed charges against the petitioner and accordingly both the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this court. 35. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the competition commission under the Competition Act, 2002 has the exclusive jurisdiction in connection with the allegations made against the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that as per the provisions of Section 62 of the Competition Act, 2002, the provision of Competition Act, 2002 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any law for the time being in force. This itself indicates that the application of the other laws, including the filing of criminal case for offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is not barred, if the basic ingredients of commission of offence under IPC is made out in a particular case. 36. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, there being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and impugned order framing charge against the petitioner, the present application is hereby dismissed. 37. The observations and references to the case-diary has been made by this Court with a view to consider as to whether the case of the petitioner stands on identical footing vis-à-vis the case of co-accused persons against whom the criminal proceedings have been quashed by this court. Any observation made in this judgement will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below and they will certainly 17 be free to take all points at the stage of trial which are available to them under law. 38. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 39. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. 40. Let this order be immediately communicated to the learned court below. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/ "