SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Abed Husain - Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation CBI - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2014
Decided On : 04-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
M.S. Sundi, Adv.

Criminal convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or the marking of documents as exhibits without proving their contents. Field deviations found years later in unstable terrains do not prove corruption unless fraudulent intent and personal pecuniary advantage are established with cogent evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 477A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Falsification of accounts and cheating in execution of public works project - Allegations of excess payment to contractors through false certification of quantities and nature of soil - Reliability of joint inspection conducted after significant lapse of time - Finding that environmental factors and time may alter field conditions - Mere marking of documents as exhibits does not equate to proof of contents (Paras 55, 57).

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Burden of Proof - Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof - Requirement of clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence to sustain convictions in criminal trials, especially regarding fraudulent intent and corrupt pecuniary advantage (Paras 58, 59, 61).

Facts of the case:
Public servants and contractors were accused of conspiring to cause loss to the state exchequer during the laying of an optical fibre cable project. It was alleged that excess payments were made by falsely certifying quantities of hard/rocky soil and RCC protection works in measurement books. A joint inspection conducted by the investigating agency seven years after project completion formed the basis of the trial court's conviction.

Findings of Court:
The joint inspection report was found unreliable as witnesses did not support the findings and no soil experts were involved. The court noted that in hilly terrains, natural calamities and road widening over seven years could alter soil nature and trench depth. Furthermore, tender clauses permitted variations in quantities based on actual work executed.

Issues: Whether the deviations found in a joint inspection conducted seven years after project completion were sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal misconduct; whether mere exhibiting of documents without proving their contents is sufficient for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion or unproved documents. The prosecution failed to establish fraudulent intention at the inception of the contract or that the public servants obtained any personal pecuniary advantage through corrupt means. The lack of correlation between the inspection report and the route index diagram, coupled with the intervening time and environmental factors, created reasonable doubt. In criminal trials, the distance between "may be true" and "must be true" must be bridged by unimpeachable evidence.

Result: Appeals allowed and accused acquitted.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • practice and procedure
    • evidence
      • proof of documents (Para 55)
    • burden of proof (Para 58, 59, 61)
  • crime and sentencing
    • offences against property
      • cheating (Para 61)
    • prevention of corruption act
      • criminal misconduct by public servant
        • section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) (Para 62, 63, 64)
    • criminal conspiracy
      • section 120b ipc (Para 8, 11, 12, 13)

Table of Contents

1. Corruption case — Excess payments alleged for OFC laying — Criminal conspiracy, cheating, and misconduct under IPC and PC Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Appellants argued evidence ignored, joint inspection unreliable; respondent claimed findings of excess payment justified conviction. (Para 16 )

3. Appeals allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Accused acquitted of all charges — Bail bonds discharged. (Para 65 )

4. What standard must be met for proving charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused obtained a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing position. (Para 54 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 64 )

5. Does mere marking of documents as exhibits dispense with formal proof?

No. Admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof; its contents must still be proved in accordance with law. (Para 55 )

6. What are the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC?

Cheating requires a false or misleading representation, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property, and a culpable intention at the time of initial promise. (Para 61 )

7. Can an accused be convicted solely on a joint inspection report not supported by its own witnesses?

No. Suspicion cannot substitute for proof; a report whose authenticity is doubted and unsupported by its signatories cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 20 , 34 , 47 , 53 , 60 )

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

As all the appeals arose from the same judgment in special case 11/2006 they are taken up together and being disposed with this common judgment.

Heard Mr. D. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 402/2013; Ms. M. S. Sundi, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 04/2014 and Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 03/2014.

Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, CBI.

2. During 1995-96 the Department of Telecommunications, here-in-after called DoT, Government of India, decided to provide Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) Communication link on Imphal Moreh route in the state of Manipur. A survey of the route was conducted; a Project Estimate was prepared & sanctioned. The total route length of the section is 108 kms. which was divided into 27 sub-sections of 4 kms length each. The tenders were invited and the work was executed through contractors separately for each sub-section. The terms, conditions & specifications of work are mentioned in the tender document. The agreement was executed with the successful contractors. The over-all in charge of the work was Divisional Engineer (DE) and the Government is represented by him. The Sub-Divisional Engineer represents the Government at the site of work. The JTO supervised the day to day work at site. The measurements were recorded by JTO in MB and bills were prepared by him. The cent percent work was checked by the Site Engineer (SDE). The bills were pre-checked by JAO, passed by the DE; counter signed by the Director and paid by the concerned Accounts Officer.

3. The depth and protection of the cable was verified as per route index diagram three times immediate after execution of the work. The cable was handed over to maintenance unit, coming to an end the responsibility of the OFC officials. After completion of trenching and laying of HDPE pipes in the year 1998, the route was given for acceptance testing in the year 1999. The route was found to be satisfactory.

4. As per the survey report, as the entire sub-section fell in the hilly and rocky area it is not possible to lay the cable at the standard department and hence the RCC protection had to be given over the cable. Acceptance testing of the OFC route had to be done by the T&D Circle. After successful completion of acceptance testing, the route was handed over to the Eastern Telecom Region for maintenance purposes.

5. An FIR was lodged by the Inspector of Police of the CBI, Silchar on 26.10.2002 to the effect that they got a reliable information that the accused public servants and different contractors while laying optic fibre cable which was awarded by the Divisional Engineer (OFC) to different contractors during 1995-96 for execution in different subsections of the Imphal-Moreh route by paying excess amount to those contractors against approved rates and the tendered quantities of the work. The excess payments were made on account of deviations and in quantity of works and increase in the quantity of the woriks including unauthorized payment against some items which were not tendered. Agreements were made without proper approval and against rules and guidelines.

6. It is alleged that appellants while working in their respective capacities by abusing their official position and in connivance with the other officials and the contractor/the appellant (Abed Hussain was awarded the contract to execute the OFC laying in respect of SS 22 and 25 of Imphal Moreh route) thereby caused undue loss to the exchequer by committing the following omissions and commissions.

(1) Approval of tenders at exorbitant rates much higher than the estimated rates.

(2) Deviations in the quantity of hard and rocky soil by increasing the same much more than the quantities indicated in the tenders, certifying the execution of increased quantities and causing payments accordingly by passing the questioned bills, apparently because the rates for these items were much
















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top