Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Vibhuti Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 143 of 2021 & Crl.M.A. 4881 of 2021
Decided On : 26-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. investigation results indicate irregularities (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. charge sheet outlines prosecution's case (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of conspiracy and roles of parties (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion on sufficiency of evidence to charge (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders on framing of charges dated 16.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 passed in CC No. 249/2019 by Ld. Special Judge, (CBI-05), (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to 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 Accounts Office (PAO), (IRLA), AGCR Building, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi.
b) On receipt of the information, a preliminary inquiry being PE-7(A)/2012-DLI was registered on 26.09.2012 at CBI, ACB, Delhi.
c) An inquiry was conducted by SI Ram Kumar Shukla, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
d) On completion of inquiry, 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 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "PC Act").
e) Charge-sheet was filed. The petitioner herein was arrayed as A-6 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
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....
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 ....
In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available.
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 court emphasized that the writ petition and any arbitration award will not be considered as evidence in the trial, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
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 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.
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
