IMPORTANT POINTS
1. As a normal rule, the Supreme Court does not in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, while hearing appeals by special leave, reappreciate the evidence, where two courts have concurrently appreciated the evidence and arrived at findings of guilt of the accused persons.
2. An effort to do justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience and Courts can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of a given case so as to further the cause of justice.
3. In a project of execution of jungle clearance work, the findings recorded that the departmental officials did not follow the codal provisions and committed gross financial irregularities and administrative lapses in the matter, the same cannot be construed as incriminating circumstances to fasten criminal liability on those officials.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 420/34, 377A/34-Prevention of Corruption Act-Section 5(2) r/ws 5(l)(d)-Conviction for offences under-Appeals against -Appellants being Executive Engineers, Deputy Executive Engineers, Section Officers and contractors- Execution of jungle clearance work-Appellants were posted to look after the affairs of their respective divisions-Work for clearance allegedly allotted to contractors on nomination basis-Prosecution case .that without any such work having actually been done amount was misappropriated by departmental officials and contractors-Prosecution has not been able to establish its case-Findings of defiance of authority and spending of grants besides violation of codal provisions and breach of departmental instructions and circulars-Convictions unsustainable -Order of reinstatement with necessary relief.
Held : that the prosecution has not been able to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, its case against any of the departmental officials, that is, the Engineers and section officers and consequently their appeals succeed and their conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine paid by each one of them is directed to be refunded to them. The prosecution has also not established its case against any of the contractors beyond a reasonable doubt. Their appeals also succeed and their conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. (Para 36)
Further held : Since, we have given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons (department officials) and acquitted them they may seek reinstatement in service. However, as we have agreed with the findings recorded by both the courts below with regard to the violation of the codal provisions and administrative lapses by the departmental officials, it appears to us that a departmental enquiry may be justified but in this fact situation, it would be an unnecessary exercise. In the established facts and circumstances of these cases, it would be appropriate with a view to do complete justice between the parties, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct that no departmental inquiry shall now be initiated against the departmental officials for their established administrative breaches and violation of the codal provisions in 1979-80. Consequent upon their acquittal, the official respondents shall be reinstated in service with continuity of service for all purposes but for their established administrative lapses and breach of codal provisions etc., they shall not be entitled to any back wages or any other type of monetary benefit for the period they remained out of service. The suspension allowance, if any received by all or anyone of them shall however not be recovered from them. This punishment appears to us to be commensurate with the gravity of their lapses and shall serve the ends of justice. Those of the officials who may have reached the age of superannuation in the meanwhile will get their pensionary benefits Calculated on the basis of their continuous service but they shall be entitled to draw pension with effect from the date of this order only. (Para 37)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave-Scope -Concurrent findings of guilt-As a normal rule, this Court will not reappreciate evidence-Exceptions.
Held : As a normal rule, this Court does not in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, while hearing appeals by special leave, reappreciate the evidence, where two courts have concurrently appreciated the evidence and arrived at findings of guilt of the accused persons. However in the light of the submissions made at the bar, with a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, we have examined some of the evidence led in the cases and in particular that evidence which appears to have principally influenced both the trial court and the High Court to convict the appellants. We may point out here that in all these cases, there is no direct evidence available on the record connecting any of the appellants with the commission of the crime alleged against them. The entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence and unfortunately neither the trial court nor the High Court have catalogued the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the appellants, except for broad generalisations on the basis of the charges framed against them. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Anand, J.-This batch of appeals by special leave arise out of the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 27.11.1991. The appellants in these appeals are Executive Engineers. Daputy Executive Engineers. Sectiton Officers and Contractors of Nellore North Division. Netlore South Division and Gandipalem Project Division. They alongwith a Superintending Engineer (since dead) and various contractors were tried for offences under Sections 120-8,420/34, 377A/34 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and of being found guilty were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment for the said offences. The circumstances under which the cases arose are :

2: A Call Attention Motion was moved in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1981 alleging large scale fraud, irregularities and illegalities committed in the execution of jungle clearance work by the engineers and contractors in various divisions of Nellore District during 1978-1981. Consequent upon the Call Attention Motion, the Government directed the then Deputy Engineer-in -Chief. Shri L.R. Kapoor PW, to examine and inquire into the allegations. He visited Nellore and after conducting a preliminary inquiry submitted his report on 17.4.1981 pointing out various illegalities and irregularities committed by the Engineers. The Secretary, Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh also directed the then Chief Technical Examiner, Mohd. Rahamathullakhan PW, to make an inquiry in to the allegations made on the floor of the assembly during the Call, Attention Motion. It further transpires that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 313 Irrigation and Power Department dated 20.7.1981. Ex. PI, appointing Shri N.V.M. Krishna, the then Chief Engineer, for carrying out departmental enquiry into the works allegedly carried out in three Divisions, namely, Nellore North Division, Nellore South Division and Gandipalem Project Division and the role of the concerned engineers.- Chief Engineer Shri Krishna PW1 submitted his report highlighting the irregularities and illegalities as noticed by him. The case which had acquired importance on account of the call attention motion in the Legislative Assembly was then entrusted by the Government to the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ACB) for inquiry. The ACB officials conducted an inquiry and on 1.5.1982 submitted a report, Ex. P.30, to the Director Anti Corruption Bureau with a request to register a case against the appellants. Consequently, crime case No. 2/ACB/NLR/ 82 for various offences, as already noticed, came to be registered against the appellants. The investigation was taken in hand by an Inspector of Police ACB in May 1984. On the request of the ACB, some members of the Engineering Staff of the department were deputed to assist it for purposes of collecting technical data etc. during the investigation. Site inspections were also carried out to find out whether any work of jungle clearance had in fact been done in 1979 in the three divisions and the area in which jungle clearance work could have been done in the year 1979 and the question of making payments in respect of the work allegedly done. After completion of investigation, chargesheets were filed by the ACB against the appellants. The Learned Special Judge, after trial of the case. found the appellants guilty of Various offences and imposed varying terms of imprisonments, including fine on different counts. The substantive sentences were. However, directed to run concurrently. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed appeals in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court by its judgment dated 27.11.1991, confirmed the conviction of the appellants on different counts but reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the engineers to the period "till the rising of the Court". The sentence of fine and imprisonment in lieu, thereof, as imposed by the trial court, was, ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document