Back
2011 (2) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
V.S. Achuthanandan — Appellant(s)
versus
R. Balakrishna Pillai & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2006
Decided on : 10-2-2011
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court allowing Appeal filed by the accused setting aside order passed by the Special Judge convicting all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of ‘IPC’ and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(2) of P .C. Act, 1947 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment.
Findings of the Court :
On analysis of materials placed by prosecution, plea of defence by accused, decision of Special Court and the reasoning of High Court, held that prosecution had established insofar as the accused (A1), (A3) and (A6) were concerned that they awarded both the works of Idamalayar at a very high and exorbitant rate with special conditions having heavy financial implications, By reducing the retention and security amount,By allowing the contractor to return only fifty per cent of the empty cement bags.High Court failed to appreciate in its proper sense materials placed by the prosecution and brushed aside several important items of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Conclusion of High Court that proved circumstances were not sufficient to hold that there was conspiracy as alleged by prosecution held unacceptable. On the contrary held that Special Court rightly accepted the case of prosecution insofar as the work of driving the surge shaft, lining the surge shaft, balance driving the power tunnel and other allied works of Idamalayar Hydro Electric Power Project at a higher or exorbitant rates to the contractor K.P. Poulose and the accused persons had abused their official positions. Special Court also accepted the prosecution case founding that A1 along with other accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and rightly convicted them. High Court committed a grave error in acquitting accused without adverting to the reliable and acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution.Accused persons (A1), (A3) and (A6) awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each- All the three accused were held entitled to remission for the period already undergone, if any, by them. Appeal allowed to said extent
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. —
1) The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the legality of the order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam allowing Criminal Appeal Nos. 822, 823 & 824 of 1999 filed by the accused setting aside the order dated 10.11.1999 passed by the Special Judge Idamalayar Investigations, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 1 of 1991 convicting all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment.
2) Brief Facts:-
(a) Idamalayar Hydro Electric Power Project, a multi-purpose power project in Kerala was conceived and completed in the year 1985. The project report was approved by the Central Water and Power Commission in 1973.
(b) After the completion of the Dam, the remaining construction work relating to the power tunnel and surge shaft, which are integral part of the water conductor system of the project, was awarded on contract basis to one K.P. Poulose (A4), as per the decision of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), on 19.11.1982. The work relating to power tunnel was awarded at 188% above the Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) and the work relating to surge shaft and allied works at 162% above the estimated amount with many special conditions, as requested by the contractor, involving heavy financial implications/advantages to him at the expense of the Board. Further, there was inordinate delay in completion of the work.
(c) During the trial run, on 15.07.1985, several leaks and cracks were noticed in the tunnel lining which was a matter of great public concern and caused considerable anxiety and fear among the public and State as well. Discussions and debates were held in this regard in the State Legislative Assembly. There was a public outcry for a judicial probe in this matter. Extensive rectification work to remedy the defects in the tunnel lining and surge shaft was undertaken at a considerable cost which was to the tune of Rs. 1.75 crore.
(d) On 02.08.1985, the Public Undertaking Committee of the State Legislature inspected the site and submitted its report recommending a judicial probe. The State Government appointed a sitting Judge of the Kerala High Court as Commissioner of Inquiry to conduct the probe. The Commission recorded its enquiry, collected considerable evidence and submitted its report in June, 1988. The Commission came to the conclusion that materials placed before it prima facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under I.P.C. and P.C Act against persons responsible for the same and recommended for investigation into these offences. The State Government accepted the recommendations and constituted a special team, headed by Superintendent of Police for Investigation. The report of the special squad was filed in the Court of Special Judge on 14.12.1990 in Crime No. C.C. No. 1 of 1991.
(e) During pendency of the case, an application for withdrawal of the prosecution against accused No. 5 - G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, who was the Secretary to the Kerala Government, Irrigation and Power Department was made by the then Special Public Prosecutor on 24.08.1992 under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) on the ground of absence of any material to sustain a successful prosecution of offences alleged against him. At this stage, the appellant herein - V.S. Achuthanandan, the then Opposition leader in the Assembly, in public interest, filed statement of objections against the move for withdrawal of the case against G. Gopalakrishna Pillai (A5). After full fledged enquiry, the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor was dismissed by the Special Judge on 16.10.1992.
(f) On 03.02.1993, Criminal Revision Petition No. 762 of 1992, filed by the State ag
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
