IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Vilas Rao Ghodeswar - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondent
Crl M C No. 263 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2021
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Rule 126, Rule 132 of General Financial Rules, 2005 - Sham Tender Process - Criminal Conspiracy - Criminal Misconduct - Violation of Procedure - Charges Framed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order on charge dated 16.12.2020 and charge dated 23.12.2020, framed by Special Judge, (CBI05), (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi in CC No.249/2019. The case involved irregularities in awarding a tender for renovation work at the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. The charge-sheet alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Judge initially did not frame charges against the petitioners, citing lack of evidence of conspiracy and irregularities. However, the High Court set aside the order, emphasizing the violation of General Financial Rules and the CPWD Manual. On remand, the Special Judge found sufficient material to proceed against the accused for criminal misconduct and framed charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the violation of financial rules, sham tender process, and criminal conspiracy to favor a specific contractor, leading to wrongful loss to the government exchequer.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the violation of financial rules, sham tender process, and evidence of conspiracy to favor a specific contractor established a prima facie case of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the charges was dismissed, and the charges framed by the Special Judge were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks quashing of the order on charge dated 16.12.2020, and charge dated 23.12.2020, framed by Special Judge, (CBI05), (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi in CC No.249/2019.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:
a) Information was received that irregularities had been committed in awarding of tender pertaining to renovation work at Pay and Account Office, (IRLA), AGCR Building, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi.
b) On receipt of the information, a preliminary enquiry being PE- 7(A)/2012-DLI was registered on 26.09.2012 at CBI, ACB, Delhi.
c) An enquiry was conducted by SI Ram Kumar Shukla, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
d) On completion of enquiry, SI Ram Kumar Shukla registered an FIR being RC No.DAI-2013-A-0004 for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "The P.C. Act").
e) Charge-sheet was filed. The petitioner herein was arrayed as A-5 in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet reads as under:
"Investigation has disclosed that vide note dated 18.06.2008, Sh. Vilas Rao Ghodeswar, Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting approved a proposal moved by Sh. N.K. Gupta, Sr. Accounts Officer. Thereafter Sh. Vilas Rao Ghodeshwar had constituted a tender committee without a single technical person. The members of the tender committee were
i) Sh. N.K. Gupta, Sr. AO as Chairman,
ii)Sh. M.D. Gupta, AAO, Member,
iii) Sh. R.K. Bhambi, AAO member and
iv) Sh. Amit Dabas, Accountant, member.
The committee was for the purpose to suggest suitable remedies to improve the condition of the office premises of the PAO. The tender committee had submitted an estimated area for renovation works at PAO(IRLA),AGCR building, Shastri Bhawan, M/o I&B, New Delhi. Sh. Vilas Rao Ghodeswar, Chief Controller of Accounts had approved the estimated area of work of 4725 Sq. Ft for Rs.85,07,060/- which was beyond his financial delegation of power. The financial approval was to be obtained from the Addl. Secretary & Financial Advisor (AS&FA) M/o I&B Govt. of India, but no such approval was obtained by him. Sh. R.C Mishra was the Addl. Secretary and Financial Advisor of M/o I&B, New Delhi during the relevant time. He has been examined and he disclosed that no approval was obtained from him in the present works. In this regard there are no files pertaining to approval of AS&FA in the O/o the CCA, M/o I&B, New Delhi. Without the approval of AS&FA by Sh. Vilash Rao Ghodeswar, CCA, a tender for renovation works was invited in the website of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 09.07.2008 with due date of submission on 24.07.2008. In response thereof five firms had submitted their applications. The firms are
1) M/s Sunsilk Carpets and Furnishers, Munirka, New Delhi
2) M/s Vidhi Carpets, C-264 Kamalpur Burari, Delhi-92
3) Sudan Carpets, 4641/21 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-22
4) Vimala Enterprises,12951 Sector-5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and
5) Kamal Enterprises, 328/12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. M/s Vidhi Carpets had quoted lowest rate at Rs.79,80,420/-; M/s .Sunsilk Carpets & Furnishers quoted 2nd lowest rate at Rs.85,07,060/- and M/s Vimala enterprises quoted highest rate at Rs.90,33,700/-. The lowest one i.e. M/s Vidhi Carpets was rejected as its work experience was for only 2 similar works as against the minimum requirement of 7 similar works as mentioned in the NIT. The 3rd lowest one i.e. M/s Vimala Enterprises was rejected as it quoted higher rates than the others. the second lowest one i.e. M/s Sunsilk Carpets & Furnishers was considered successful in the tender and was awarded the work for Rs.85,07,060/-. The EMD drafts of unsuccessful firms were returned. M/s Kamal Enterprises and M/s Sudan Carpets had not submitted the draft of Rs.2.00 lacs for EMD. The tenders of both t
Badri Rai & ANR vs. State of Bihar
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra
NCT of Delhi) vs. Shivcharan Bansal
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi [State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal
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 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....
In tender-related fraud cases, a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, allowing for charge framing even without direct evidence.
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 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.
At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty for the application of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedu....
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
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.