Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar etc. vs State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1979 Supreme(SC) 390

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL JJ.
Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar etc., Appellants
Versus
State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 224 and 268 of 1977
Decided on 11-9-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. T. Godiwala, P. G. Gokhale and B. R. Agarwala, Advocates (in Cri. A. No. 224 of 1977) and Mrs. S. Bhandare, Advocate (in Cri A. No. 268 of 1977), for Appellants; M/s H. R.Khanna and M.N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.R.AGRAWAL, H.R.KHANNA, M.N.SHROFF, P.G.GOKHALE, S.Bhandan, T.GODIVALA

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 120B(1) r/w 420,468,471,467 and 477A - Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) – Tenders - Widening canal - Appellants were tried jointly by Special Judge, who found them guilty and awarded them punishments - Prosecution case has to be set out at some length and may be stated - Appellant was holding post of Surveyor-in-charge, Mercantile Marine Department also of Captain of Ports - In his capacity last-mentioned, work of deepening and widening canal which connects river Zuari with river Mandovi required his urgent attention as canal had to be made navigable at low tide for use of mine barges during monsoon season when sea becomes rough and it is hazardous to navigate across mount of river - Survey of canal had been carried out by Port Trust and its report had been submitted to the concerned authorities - Tenders were invited by A-1 through an advertisement in press and appellant was the only person to present one - As the cost of the work exceeded rupees one lakh and tender was a solitary one - Governor forwarded it to Central Government for approval and did not accept a suggestion made by Secretary to Industries and Labour Department that the work be started immediately in anticipation of said approval - Nevertheless A-1 entrusted the work to A-2 who started executing it - Whether dredging was done in the canal or not – Held, learned counsel for State sought to buttress the evidence which court have just above discussed with findings recorded by learned Special Judge - Those findings were affirmed by learned Judicial Commissioner and court are clearly of opinion, for reasons which need not be re-stated here, that they were correctly arrived at - Apart from the findings and evidence referred to earlier no material has been brought to our notice on behalf of the State such as would indicate that the bills or summaries in question were false in any material particular - Although it does appear that quite a few of documents admittedly prepared by or at instance of appellants in connection with execution of the work came into existence not while work was in progress but only later when a demand for them was made by Accounts Department, charge cannot be sustained in relation to any of its heads, there being no proof of the falsity of any of the entries made in those documents - In the result court accept both the appeals, set aside the conviction recorded against and the sentences imposed upon each of appellants and acquit them of the charge in its entirety - Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

KOSHAL, J.:— By this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 224 and 268 of 1977 in both of which a judgment dated 19th of March, 1977 of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, upholding the conviction of the appellants and the sentences imposed upon them by the trial Court is challenged.

The appellants were tried jointly by the Special Judge, Panaji, who found them guilty and awarded them punishments as specified in the table below:

Serial number of the accused Name of the accused Section of the law under which conviction recorded Sentences

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1. Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar (a) Section 120B (1) read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Codeas also Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(b) Sections 420 and 468 and Section 109 read with Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(c) Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of rupees two lakhs, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months.

Moreshwar Hari Mahatme (a) Section 120B (1) read with Sections 420, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(b) Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(c) Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(d) Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of rupees two lakhs, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous Imprisonment for eighteen months.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of each of the accused were directed to run concurrently. It may be stated here that the charges framed against them under Section 467 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code were not found proved and they were acquitted of the same.

2. The prosecution case has to be set out at some length and may be stated thus. In the year 1965 the appellant Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar (hereinafter referred to as A-1) was holding the post of Surveyor-in-charge, Mercantile Marine Department, Marmogoa as also of the Captain of Ports, Panaji. In his capacity last-mentioned, the work of deepening and widening the Kumbarjus canal which connects river Zuari with river Mandovi required his urgent attention as the canal had to be made navigable at low tide for the use of mine barges during monsoon season when the sea becomes rough and it is hazardous to navigate across the mount of the river Mandovi at Aguda. A survey of the canal had been carried out by the Marmagoa Port Trust and its report had been submitted to the concerned authorities. Tenders were invited by A-1 through an advertisement in the press and appellant Moreshwar Hari Mahatme (hereinafter described as A-2) was the only person to present one, which he did on the 5th January, 1966. As the cost of the work exceeded rupees one lakh and the tender was a solitary one, the Lieut. Governor forwarded it to the Central Government for approval and did not accept a suggestion made by the Secretary to the Industries and Labour Department (to be hereinafter called I. L. D.) that the work be started immediately in anticipation of the said approval. Nevertheless A-1 entrusted the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document