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) 1104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
S. Kumar Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation CBI - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2015
Decided On : 04-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Kh G. Singh, Adv.

Mere marking of documents as exhibits does not prove their contents. In criminal trials, strong suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof, and convictions for criminal misconduct require evidence of pecuniary advantage obtained through corrupt or illegal means.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 415, 420, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Proof of Documents - Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the formal proof of its contents - Admissibility of a document is distinct from its proof - The court must evaluate the probabilities of the case based on the entire record to determine if a document is proved, not proved, or disproved (Paras 46, 48).

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Proof vs. Suspicion - Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof - There is a significant distance between a conclusion that something "may be" true and "must be" true, which must be bridged by clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence (Paras 49, 50, 52).

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 13(1)(d) - To sustain a conviction for criminal misconduct, the prosecution must establish that the public servant obtained for themselves or another person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their official position (Paras 54, 55).

(D) Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - Cheating - Requires the existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the initial promise or representation (Para 52).

Facts of the case:
Public servants were convicted by the trial court for allegedly conspiring with contractors to cause wrongful loss to the exchequer. It was alleged that they abused their positions to make excess payments for the laying of optical fiber cables by falsely certifying soil types and trench depths. The prosecution's case relied heavily on a joint inspection report conducted by the investigating agency approximately seven years after the work's completion.

Findings of Court:
The court found the joint inspection report unreliable as the witnesses failed to support its findings and the reference points could not be correlated with the route index diagrams. It was noted that tender clauses permitted changes in quantities based on actual execution. Given the hilly terrain and the passage of time, changes in soil condition and trench depth due to natural calamities and road widening were plausible. No evidence was produced to show that the public servants obtained any personal pecuniary advantage.

Issues: Whether the mere marking of documents as exhibits constitutes proof of their contents; and whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to provide foundational facts to prove dishonest intention or pecuniary gain. Since the joint inspection report was based on conjectures and lacked corroboration from relevant departmental records, and given that suspicion cannot replace legal proof, the conviction was unsustainable.

Result: Appeals allowed and accused are acquitted from the charge.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences against property
      • cheating (Para 8, 12, 52)
      • forgery (Para 8, 13)
    • conspiracy (Para 7, 8, 12, 13)
    • offences under the prevention of corruption act
  • practice and procedure
    • evidence
      • proof of documents (Para 46, 47, 48)
      • standard of proof (Para 49, 50, 52)
    • appeal
      • appellate court's power to reappreciate evidence (Para 52)
  • contract law
    • tender documents (Para 2, 20, 21)

Table of Contents

1. Appeals against conviction for conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act in an OFC laying project. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )

2. Appellants argued evidence was misappreciated; prosecution contended joint inspection proved excess payment and deviation from tender quantities. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )

3. Conviction set aside; acquitted of all charges because prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 56 )

4. What is the standard of proof for criminal conspiracy and misconduct by a public servant?

Prosecution must prove every ingredient of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )

5. Can a joint inspection report prepared years after execution be relied upon without correlating with contemporaneous documents?

No. A joint inspection report loses credibility if witnesses cannot correlate its findings with the route index diagram, measurement book, or tender documents, and if its contents are not supported by evidence. (Para 18 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 36 , 37 , 38 )

6. What constitutes an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC?

Cheating requires a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of initial representation. Mere failure to keep a promise or excess payment without such intent does not amount to cheating. (Para 52 )

7. What is required to prove criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Prosecution must establish that the public servant obtained for himself or another a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing position. Evidence of such gain is essential. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 )

8. Does mere marking of a document as an exhibit prove its contents?

No. Mere marking of exhibits does not dispense with formal proof. The truth of a document's contents must be proved by evidence, not merely by filing or exhibiting it. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

As all the appeals arose from the same judgment in special case 15/2006 they are taken up together and being disposed with this common judgment.

Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 02/2015; Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. Appeal 04/2015 and Mr. M. G. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 05/2015.

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. Hence 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 14.09.2001 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 works 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 (M. S. Deol was awarded the contract to execute the OFC laying in respect of SS 20) 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 higher than the estimated rates.

(3) Deviatio
















































































































































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