Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Jagdish Kumar Arora - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondent
Crl M C No. 3505 of 2017, 3529 of 2017; Crl M A No. 14279 of 2017, 241 of 2018, 242 of 2018, 14376 of 2017, 237 of 2018, 238 of 2018, 31510 of 2018, 31511 of 2018
Decided On : 25-03-2021
CRIMINAL - CHARGE - FRAMING OF - SUFFICIENCY OF MATERIAL - CONSPIRACY - PROOF - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - LOSS TO EXCHEQUER - FORGERY OF AUTHORIZATION - GRAVE SUSPICION - CHARGE FRAMED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Jagdish Kumar Arora, Executive Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board, S.K. Chauhan, Assistant Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board and Raman Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Metro Projects and Sales Services, were charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges arose from allegations that during the period 2009-2012, the petitioners conspired to cause wrongful loss to the Delhi Jal Board by using false authorization letters/documents to purchase spare parts for sewage treatment plants from M/s Essential Power & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. (EPTP). The investigation revealed that the authorization letters submitted to the Delhi Jal Board in favor of M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services were forged, and that the spare parts supplied were not genuine EPTP parts but were procured from local markets at exorbitant rates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material on record to show that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the Delhi Jal Board. The court noted that the authorization letters issued by EPTP to Delhi Jal Board were forged, that the spare parts supplied were not genuine EPTP parts, and that the petitioners had cleared payments to M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services despite the production of vouchers of local purchase for some material and the non-production of any purchase vouchers for other material. The court also found that there was a substantial loss to the exchequer as the cost of spare parts supplied by EPTP to its authorized representative in Delhi was significantly lower than the amount charged to the Delhi Jal Board.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient material on record to show that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the Delhi Jal Board? 2. Whether the authorization letters issued by EPTP to Delhi Jal Board were forged? 3. Whether the spare parts supplied were genuine EPTP parts? 4. Whether the petitioners had cleared payments to M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services despite the production of vouchers of local purchase for some material and the non-production of any purchase vouchers for other material? 5. Whether there was a substantial loss to the exchequer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was sufficient material on record to show that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the Delhi Jal Board. The court noted that the authorization letters issued by EPTP to Delhi Jal Board were forged, that the spare parts supplied were not genuine EPTP parts, and that the petitioners had cleared payments to M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services despite the production of vouchers of local purchase for some material and the non-production of any purchase vouchers for other material. 2. The court also found that there was a substantial loss to the exchequer as the cost of spare parts supplied by EPTP to its authorized representative in Delhi was significantly lower than the amount charged to the Delhi Jal Board.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the framing of charges against them.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Petitioners in the respective petitions impugn common order on charge dated 28.07.2017, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with substantive offences.
2. Jagdish Kumar Arora, (Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3505 of 2017), was the then Executive Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board, S.K. Chauhan, (Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3605 of 2017), was the then Assistant Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board and Raman Gupta, (Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3529 of 2017), a private person and was the Proprietor of M/s Metro Projects and Sales Services.
3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the basis of source information FIR was registered under Section 120 B read with sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that during the period 2009 2012, Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora, the then Executive Engineer (E&M) , Mr. S.K. Chauhan, JE (E&M), SDW-VI DJB and other unknown officers of DJB, hatched a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Raman Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services to cause wrongful loss to Delhi Jal Board (DJB) in the matter of purchase of spare parts i.e. machinery/spare parts/pumps and motors etc. of 'Essenpro' make, originally manufactured by M/s Essential Power & Transmission (Pvt.) Limited, 24, Marol Co-op Industrial Estate Limited, M V Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai by using false authorization letter/documents.
4. After investigation, Charge Sheet was filed on 30.06.2016 under Sections 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed framing of charges against the Petitioners.
6. It is alleged in the charge sheet that during the period 2009- 2012, petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to Delhi Jal Board (Delhi Jal Board) in the matter of purchase of spare parts i.e. machinery/spare parts/pumps and motors etc. of 'Essenpro' make, by using false authorization letter/documents.
7. It is alleged that Petitioner Raman Gupta of M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services sent letters to the Executive Engineer, SDW (VI), Delhi Jal Board claiming himself to be the sole authorized dealer for spares, renovation and servicing of "Essenpro" make gear boxes.
8. It is alleged that during the period of 2009 to 2012, the original manufacturer M/s. Essential Power & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. had supplied items only to the tune of Rs. 32,56,500/- to M/s. Roltec Marketing Engineers, its authorized representative in Delhi. However, investigation revealed that work orders amounting to Rs. 2,78,86,452/- were awarded to M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services by the Delhi Jal Board, which caused a huge wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the supplier firm M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services.
9. Though the FIR mentions only ten work orders, however during investigation it is alleged that total twenty three work orders had been issued to M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services, for supply of "Essenpro" brand spare parts/ repair work by Delhi Jal Board officials posted at Keshopur Plant, during the years 2009 to 2012.
10. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Sewage Treatment Plants were installed by different companies at different sites of the Delhi Jal Board during the period 1995 to 2000 and "Essenpro" make gear box were approved/ installed by these firms at the time of setting of plants. Since the equipments installed, required regular routine maintenance as well as break down maintenance, spares were required on continuous basis to run the equipments for uninterrupted operation.
11. It is alleged that investigations revealed that
AI
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....
Insufficient evidence of misconduct or conspiracy led to the acquittal of public servants in a procurement corruption case.
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 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.
Corruption convictions require incontrovertible evidence; mere allegations without substantial proof are insufficient for establishing public servant misconduct.
Wrongful loss is not a necessary ingredient for establishing the offense of forgery; the mere act of using forged documents suffices to constitute the offense.
The defense of the accused is not to be considered at the time of framing the charge.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
