Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
State (Delhi Admn.), Appellant
Versus
N. S. Giani and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 1975, D/- 4-4-1990.
Held: We have also considered the evidence regarding the allotments made in favour of M/s. Junu Rubber General Industries, Delhi, M/s. Bihar Steel & Wire Industries, Patna and M/s. Indian Steel and Wire Industries. It may not be necessary to consider these releases in detail. The two irregularites mainly relied upon by the prosecution, as already mentioned, are one in favour of M/s. Weldon Wire & Nail Industries for the second period and M/s. Bihar Steel & Wire Industries for the first period. It is contended that these two cases would bring the first accused within the mischief under Section 5 (1) (d) and that the prosecution did not necessarily proved that there is pecuniary advantage and it is enough if it is proved that corrupt or illegal means were adopted or there is abuse of official position by the public servant. But in this case the evidence on which the prosecution seems to rely on, to prove the guilt of the first accused that he has employed corrupt or illegal means or had otherwise abused his position as a public servant is only in the nature of circumstantial evidence. These circumstances do not necessarily lead to an inference or atleast a presumption that the irregularities committed by him amount to obtaining a benefit in faviour of the friends by corrupt or illegal means. In the case of release to M/s. Weldon Wire & Nail Industries, the copy of the indent had been received by the first accused with the recommendation of the District Industries Officer and the Director of Industries sent no order to the first accused rejecting the indent. As a matter of fact P.W. 77, Deputy Director of Industries, Punjab, in his evidence, stated that he did not raise any objection in respect of release in favour of M/s. Weldon Wire & Nail Industries and the prosecution could not show that the firm was not eligible for the release. The mere failure on the part of the first respondent to wait would amount to only a technical irregularity. Now coming to the release in favour of M/s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, it has not been proved that if the first accused had placed the application of the firm before the Controller, it would have been rejected by the latter and that a lesser tonnage would have been allotted. On the other hand, P.W. 73, one of the concerned officers, stated that if this application had been put before him, he would have sanctioned the release. Under these circumstances it is difficult to infer any dishonest intention on the part of the first accused. In any event this evidence does not necessarily lead to the only inference that the first accused acted dishonestly. The view taken by the appellate court appears to be quite reasonable and. sound and there are no grounds to interfere. (para 5)
JUDGMENT
REDDY, J.:- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court acquitting the respondent accused. These accused, five in number, along with one Gurbachan Singh were put up for trial before the Special Judge of Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 5(2) read with S. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Gurbachan Singh who was the brother of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein was adjudged insane and his trial was separated. The remaining accused were convicted and sentenced to one and a half years and six years respectively under these two counts and also sentenced to pay fines. On appeal, the High Court reversed the same and acquitted all of them. Hence the present appeal before this Court pursuant to the leave granted.
2. The first respondent N. S. Giani functioned as Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, in charge of section for distribution of Stainless Steel, for the period from 27-6-60 to July, 1961. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 and Gurbachan Singh were brothers. Accused No. 5 was their friend and partner. It is alleged that first respondent was also known to the other accused, when he functioned as Deputy Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller. The accused Nos. 2 to 5 were manufacturing wire / fencing wire/wire nails/wire-drawing units in the names of M/s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, Patna, Bawa Screw and Wire Products, Delhi, Bharat Wire Nail Industry, Delhi, National Wire and Nail Industries, Delhi and Weldon Wire and Wire Nail Industries, during the period October, 1959 and November, 1959. When the first accused was promoted as Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller on 27-5-60 and was in charge of section dealing with distribution of stainless steel for utensil manufacturing he is said to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused and Gurbachan Singh to give pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means and by abuse of his own powers, by releasing huge quantities of stainless steel, the import and distribution of which was done by the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. During the period from 27-5-60 to 26-6-61 the first accused in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy between the accused, obtained advantage for himself and for the other coconspirators by abuse of his powers and his position as a public servant and dishonestly, fraudulently and unauthorisedly secured release orders of the quantities of stainless steel for the benefit of the other co-accused and Gurbachan Singh. The release orders are 15 in numbers :
1. Dated 26-9-60 for 9.92 tons to M/s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, Patna.
2. Dated 12-10-60 for 4 tons to the same unit as above.
3. Dated 2-11-60 for 24 tons to M/s. Weldon Wire and Wire Nail Industries, Faridabad.
4. Dated 5-11-60 for 25 tons to M/s. Central Commercial Corporation, Patna.
5. Dated 15-12-60 for 30 tons to M/s. Metro Engineering and Metal Works, Delhi.
6. Dated 15-12-60 for 25 tons to M/s. Swastic Metal Works, New Delhi.
7. Dated 13-1-61/6-2-61 for 25 tons to M/s. Junu Rubber & General Industries, Delhi.
8. Dated 16-1-61 for 25 tons to M/s. Indian Steel and Wire Industries, Dhekiajili, Assam.
9. Dated 31-3-61/17-5-61 for 30 tons to the unit at (5) above.
10. Dated 31-3-61/17-5-61 for 25 tons to the unit at (6) above.
11. Dated 31-3,-61/ 17-5-61 for 25 to the unit at (7) above.
12. Dated 31-3-61 for 36 tons to the unit at (3) above.
13. Dated 31-3-61 for 15 tons to the unit at (8) above.
14. Dated 22-6-61 for 12 tons to the units at (1) and (2) above.
15. Dated 22-6-61 for 15 tons to the unit at (4) above.
The units mentioned herein belong to the co-accused and it is alleged that the stainless steel was made over to them or their authorised agents. It is also alleged that release of these huge quantities of 325.92 tons were said to have been made despite the clearcut policy and instructions of the Government to the contrary. It was also the declared policy of the Government that no new capacity for the manufacture of stai
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
