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.

JUDGMENT

1. The above captioned appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11.09.2012 and order on sentence dated 13.09.2012 passed by the learned trial court in CC No. 04/2007, vide which appellant- Phool Kumar Mehra [in the first captioned appeal Crl.A.1190/2012] has been held guilty of the offences under Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 120B/420/511 IPC. Vide impugned order dated 13.09.2012, the appellant- Phool Kumar Mehra has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of four months. Besides, he has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo sentence of four months.

2. Vide impugned judgment appellant- Irfan Khan [in the second captioned appeal Crl.A.1234/2012] has also been held guilty and vide impugned order on sentence, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 120 B IPC and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. He is also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is directed to undergo simple imprisonment of four months.

3. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of both the captioned appeals as these arise out of common impugned judgment dated 11.09.2012 and order on sentence dated 13.09.2012.

4. The factual matrix of these appeals, as spelt out in the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2012, are that appellant-Phool Kumar Mehra was the Superintendent of Children Home for Boys, Narela; Home for Aged and Infirm Persons, Narela and After Care Home for Boys, Narela, when the tenders for the work of white wash and paint in these 'Three Homes' was invited in the year 2003, which was awarded to appellant No. 2-Irfan Khan. A complaint was received at the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), Delhi by Sh. R.P. Singh, Welfare Officer, with regard to irregularities committed by the appellant- Phool Kumar Mehra in conspiracy with appellant- Irfan Khan. An enquiry committee was constituted, which found that the work in question was awarded in violation of the prescribed rules, as the work order was for more than value of Rs. One Lac and so, open tenders should have been invited but instead thereof, limited quotations were called and the work was awarded to an individual. It was further found that since the work order involved higher amount, open bid should have been called, so that others could have quoted the lower rates than the one given by appellant-Irfan Khan. It was also found that the work was of sub-standard, which amounted to no work and for such work, inflated bills to the tune of Rs. 10,66,569/- were submitted, and thereby, both the appellants cheated the Government. Accordingly, a case FIR No. 40/2004, police station ACB, under Sections 13(1) (d) r/w Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 120B/420/409/468/471/511 IPC was registered by the Anti Corruption Branch against both the appellants. The appellant- Phool Kumar Mehra was charged for the offences under Section 15 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 120-B/420/511 IPC and appellant- Irfan Khan was charged for the offences under Sections 120B/420/511 IPC.

5. Appellants were tried for the aforesaid offences charged against them and prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case. Appellant- Irfan Khan in his statement record