Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Union of India – Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Chander Gupta – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 31 of 2012, Crl. M.A. Nos. 6948, 9445 of 2018
Decided On : 08-01-2019
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Mr. Sayandeep Pahari.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and the importance of verifying facts before filing a complaint.
Headnote:
Union of India - Criminal Prosecution - IPC 420, IPC 468, IPC 471 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's failure to prove allegations against the accused under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the complaint against the accused was false and that there was no occasion for the complaint to have been filed. The trial court's finding of acquittal was upheld, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India sought to set aside the order of acquittal of the accused, who was charged under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC for deceiving the complainant and tampering with receipt certificates.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations against the accused and that there was no occasion for the complaint to have been filed. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it with costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had committed the alleged offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the allegations against the accused and the lack of verification of facts before filing the complaint. The trial court's finding of acquittal was upheld, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,00,000, and the goods seized by the investigating officer were directed to be released to the entitled person within four weeks.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner Union of India seeks setting aside of order dated 14.12.2009 passed by Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Respondent/accused herein has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC.
2. A complaint was made by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, the Petitioner herein, against the Respondent Suresh Chand Gupta that he as Proprietor of M/s Electronics Enterprises was awarded a contract for supply of microphones manufactured by M/s AKG Acoustics (I) Ltd. As per the terms of contract, he was required to get the equipment inspected by purchaser's authorized representatives, at manufacturer's factory premises before its dispatch/delivery to the consignee. 95% payment was to be released against proof of inspection and dispatch. Balance 5% was to be paid after receipt and acceptance of stores by the consignee in full and good condition. The Respondent received payment to the tune of Rs. 69,80,922/- on the basis of various bills, along with the Consignees Receipt Certificate/Inspection Note/Railway Receipt.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that later on, it was revealed that one of the consignee namely Chief Engineer (NZ) AIR and TV could not receive the stores booked under R/R dated 21.07.1989 because the same was booked in the name of ‘self’ by the contractor instead of booking the same in the consignee's name. The second grievance is that Director (Engg.) AIR, New Delhi intimated that supplier had not supplied any inspected material but dispatched some un-inspected goods. The third head of grievance is that accused tampered three Receipt Certificate issued by consignees in Calcutta/Bombay and collected payment.
4. As per the prosecution, during investigation it was revealed that accused had added item mentioned at Serial No. 4 and 5 in challan No. 203 dated 05.07.1989. Similarly, he added items at Serial No. 2 to 4 in challan No. 228
5. It is alleged that the representative of the Respondent was never present at the time of inspection. When the inspection notes were in the process of issue, there was some dispute between the respondent and the manufacturer. Manufacturer severed all business relations with the respondent. Inspection calls given by manufacturer earlier were withdrawn and letter was addressed to Director General Supplies and Disposals, still the respondent managed to get the inspection notes released from the office of complainant in collusion with some officers. The R/R dated 21.07.1989 addressed to ‘self’ indicated the weight of microphones dispatched thereunder as 22 kg whereas weight of items given in bill No. 252 came to more than three quintals. The inspection notes of those goods were consigned only on 22.08.1989 but despatch has been shown on 21.07.1989.
6. After perusing the evidence on record and other documents placed before it, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2009 held that the prosecution had failed to prove allegations against the Respondent and there was no material on record to convict the accused on any count of charge. It has inter-alia held that all goods against which the payment was made to the Respondent were supplied by him to the department. Further that there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had received payment against any un-inspected goods or against the terms of the accepted tender. The Trial Court acquitted the Respondent of all charges.
7. Petitioner initially filed an appeal before the sessions court impugning the order of acquittal, however withdrew the appeal on 20.05.2011 with liberty to file the present petition.
8. With regard to each of the allegations the finding of the trial court is elaborate. The trial court has considered the evidence led by the prosecution and inter-alia held as under:
“8. First count of charge against the accused was that during the year 1989-1990 he deceived Chief Controller of Accounts Department by misrepresenting that
