Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 884
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
K.H. Kamaladini – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.5380 of 2024
Decided on : 20-05-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. K. Pal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – At this stage, Court can examine only documents forming part of charge-sheet and no other material can be considered.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Discharge of accused – At this stage, Court can examine only documents forming part of charge-sheet and no other material can be considered – At this stage, Court cannot sift evidence forming a part of charge-sheet with a view to separating grain from chaff – If evidence adduced before Court creates grave suspicion against accused, Court will not discharge accused – At this stage, outcome of disciplinary proceedings cannot be examined and what needs to be examined is material forming part of charge-sheet – If Court is of the view that evidence without cross-examination or rebuttal shows that accused has not committed any offence, then order of discharge must be passed – If evidence adduced before Court creates grave suspicion against accused, Court will not discharge accused. (Paras 9 and 10)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409 and 468 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Forgery and causing wrongful loss to Government – Dismissal of plea for discharge – Allegation against appellant pertains to tender process – There is no allegation that appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification – There is no allegation that he had agreed or accepted any valuable thing or had dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him – Direction to frame charge for offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, set aside – Order of framing of charge for offences under Section 409 and 468 of IPC maintained – Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 10, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has challenged the order dated 27th March 2023 passed by High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissing Criminal Revision Application No. 195 of 2023. Appellant was aggrieved by order dated 15th February 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, framing charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and dismissing the appellant’s plea for discharge.
Findings of Court:
There was no case made out to proceed against appellant for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. To this extent, impugned orders will have to be modified.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges and factual allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's consideration of evidence and law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. ruling on framing of charges. (Para 15) |
| 5. final outcome and order. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 27th March 2023 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.195 of 2023. The appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 15th February 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, framing charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 13 (1) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and dismissing the appellant’s plea for discharge.
2. A complaint dated 30th January 2013 was received by the Chief Minister of Goa and Chief Vigilance Officer of Goa, containing allegations pertaining to 19 short tender notices comprising 847 numbers of water supply works in the Works Division XVII (PHE-N), Public Works Department, Porvorim, Goa. It was alleged that the tender notices were not published in newspapers as required by the Central Public Works Department Manual. It was also alleged that some works were unnecessarily split without any valid justification, and the works were allotted to the same party or their cronies. The Department of Vigilance conducted an enquiry into the complaint and furnished a report dated 26th March 2013, which revealed that 19 Short Tender Notices enclosed in the complaint were never published in any newspaper. The works were quoted 4.8% to 14.95% above their estimated cost, and for most works, only two bidders had quoted bids, which clearly indicated that the Government did not get the benefit of competitive bidding and caused a loss to the Government. The report further revealed that the appellant was working as an Executive Engineer at the relevant division of the Public Works Department, Porvorim, from 21st October 2009 till the date of the enquiry report, i.e. 26th March 2013. The report noted that the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the allegations during enquiry, wherein he had submitted that the decision of not advertising the tenders costing up to Rs.10 Lakhs was approved by the then Public Works Department Minister for the purpose of saving time, and this decision was approved by other stakeholders. During the enquiry, photocopies of each document were collected from the relevant Division, and it was observed that the signature of the Minister of the Public Works Department was obtained in every case, after obtaining approvals from the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department.
3. The enquiry report finally concluded that the appellant, after approvals from the aforesaid authorities, inserted in his own handwriting “approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O” just above the signature of the then Public Works Department Minister on each document, so as to project as if it was an instruction from the Minister himself. The enquiry report also addressed the order dated 16th April 2007, which granted financial powers to Executive Engineers, Chief Engineers, and Superintendent Engineers for emergent maintenance and repair work costing up to Rupees Ten Lakhs. However, it was alleged that the appellant undertook works such as painting and fixing floor tiles, which could not be categorised as emergent works.
4. Relying on the said enquiry report, the Chief Technical Examiner of the Directorate of Vigilance, Government of Goa, lodged a complaint dated 05th June 2023, which led to the registration of Crime No.6 of 2013. After obtaining the requisite sanction dated 5th February 2020 from the Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Departmen
