IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY
Jaffer Sadik, S/o. Mohd. Molvik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) in Special Criminal Case No. 13/2004, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
In CRA 493/2006


(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
In CRA No. 528/2006

(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the appellants is that the accused D.B. Bhaskar Rao (died during the pendency of the case) was resident of Bhilai Steel Plant at Bombay Office, the present appellant Jaffer Sadik was Manager (Inspection) Bhilai Steel Plant at Bombay Office and N.V. Krishnamurthy was General Manager (Material) Bhilai Steel Plant at Bhilai and the appellant Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah was a working partner of M/s. Mico Metal Industries Ltd. Bombay. The main allegation/charge against the appellant Jaffer Sadik along with D.B. Bhaskar Rao (died) and N.V. Krishnamurthy is that they have rejected the material (seamless pipes) which was








Insufficient evidence of misconduct or conspiracy led to the acquittal of public servants in a procurement corruption case.
In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available.
In tender-related fraud cases, a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, allowing for charge framing even without direct evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the material on record must be evaluated to determine the existence of the ingredient....
The need for a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of cheating and conspiracy, including dishonest intent and the specific role of accused in the alleged fraud.
Procedural violations in public procurement can constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting the need for transparency and adherence to regulations in awarding ....
The judgment emphasizes the need for establishing criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt and the requirement of dishonest intention for the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of financial rules, sham tender process, and evidence of conspiracy to favor a specific contractor constituted a prima facie cas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of consideration of charge, an accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.