Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
J.P. SINGH - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Respondent
CRL.A. 975, 987 & 1087/2015
Decided on : 23.11.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Mr. Aditya Singla, Mr. Shiv Chopra and Ms. Pallavi Garg, Mr. Satyam Threja and Mr. Saumya Sayal, Advs., Mr. R.M. Tufail and Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advs., Ms. Pinky Dubey and Mr. Amit Rathore, Advs.
Mr. Narender Maan, SPP with Mr. Anand and Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advs
The court's decision highlighted the importance of evaluating witness testimonies, the timing of document recovery, and the competency of the authority to accord sanction in corruption cases.
Headnote:
Corruption - Conviction under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 120-B//467/468/471 of the IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - [IPC 120-B//467/468/471, Prevention of Corruption Act 13(1)(d)] - The court discussed the conspiracy to cheat the MCD and the alterations made in the tender documents, leading to a wrongful loss to the public exchequer. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, and suspended the sentence of the appellants based on the period of incarceration and the likelihood of delay in hearing the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 120-B//467/468/471 of the IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for conspiracy to cheat the MCD and making alterations in tender documents, causing a wrongful loss to the public exchequer. The appellants sought suspension of their sentence based on improvements in the prosecution's version and the delay in the appeals' hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, and found discrepancies in the prosecution's version. The court suspended the sentence of the appellants based on the period of incarceration and the likelihood of delay in hearing the appeals.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the timing of document recovery, and the competency of the authority to accord sanction for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the non-obstante clause in Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the timing of document recovery to suspend the sentence of the appellants.
Final Decision: The substantive sentence of each of the three appellants was suspended, and they were admitted to bail with certain conditions.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Crl. M. (B) No.7747/2015 in CRL.A. 975/2015 Crl. M. (B) No.7765/2015 in CRL.A. 987/2015 Crl. M. (B) No.7973/2015 in CRL.A. 1087/2015
There are three appellants before this Court. Applicant J.P. Singh was the Director of M/s Sweka Power Tech Engineers Private Limited; Om Prakash Mahla was the Executive Engineer (Electrical)-V, MCD and Gurcharan Singh was the UDC (Tender Clerk) of the MCD. All three are convicts under Section 120-B//467/468/471 of the IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Convicts Om Prakash Mahla and Gurcharan Singh have been separately convicted for the substantive offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for a maximum period of 4 years besides fine for the separate convictions. Sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The nominal roll of the appellants has been requisitioned. Their nominal roll reflect that as on date, each of them has undergone incarceration of about 1 year and 2 months which includes the remissions earned by them.
3. The version of the prosecution is that M/s Sweka Power Tech Engineers Private Limited through its Managing Director T.P. Singh and its Director J.P. Singh along with other public servants who were employees of the MCD had in a concerted conspiracy (in the years 2007-2008) cheated the MCD and in furtherance of this conspiracy, certain alterations/over-writings were made in the rate list of the items of the tender documents which were submitted on 14.05.2008; these forgeries were effected in the tender documents by T.P. Singh but this dishonest and fraudulent act was in conspiracy with other co-accused. Thereby, a wrongful loss of about Rs.1,42,83,000/-was caused to the public exchequer and a benefit had accrued to the accused.
4. Evidence both oral and documentary had been led before the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge had convicted the three appellants (before this Court) as aforenoted; this Court is not dealing with the plea of any other person and as such there is no necessity to note their convictions or their sentence.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for J.P. Singh submits that there are substantial improvements made in the version of the prosecution and the star witnesses of the prosecution (namely PW-4 and PW-6) in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC had nowhere stated that they had seen T.P. Singh making any alterations in the tender documents on 14.05.2008; it was only in their version on oath in Court that this has been uttered by them for the first time; this destroys the credibility of these witnesses and thus the version of the prosecution that alteration in the tender documents had been carried by T.P. Singh stands nullified. Attention has been drawn to the documentary evidence which is a part of the record. Submission being that even as per the prosecution, there were three entries which were the subject matter of dispute; qua the overwriting and cutting in the tender documents of entries at Sr. No. 20 (a) and 20 (b) of the tender documents, the Trial Judge has himself exonerated the accused and para 96 of the judgment holds that since these entries had not been sent to the CFSL for examination, it could not be established that the rates in these entries Sr. No. in 20 (a) and 20 (b) were changed or altered. Submission of the learned senior counsel qua entry No. 21 being that the evidence of PW10 who was the handwriting expert has not been appreciated correctly by the Trial Judge to hold that this entry had been over-written or altered. Attention has been drawn to certain parts of his cross-examination to substantiate this argument. It is submitted that a conviction based solely on the expert evidence is also a faulty finding. Additional submission being that the version of the prosecution, that certain rough notes were prepared by PW-5 who was the competitor (tender documents of Spaceage Switchgears Ltd.) is also doubtful as admittedly the so calle
