1996 Supreme(Raj) 1179
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajendra Saxena, J.
R.S. Khandelwal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Revi. Petition No. 188 and 202 of 95 dated 22.2.95 passed by Special Judge (ACD Cases ) Jaipur in Case No. 13 of 92.
Decided On : 03-08-1996
The court held that the learned Special Judge had committed an illegality in ignoring relevant documents, which were produced by the Assistant Secretary (Irrigation Department) Govt, of Rajasthan, and which were not disputed.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Framing of Charges - Consideration of Documents - Section 294 Cr.P.C. - Discharge of Accused - Delay in Filing Challan - Violation of Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with offences under sections 420, 120-B, 471, and 468 IPC and under section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The charges arose from allegations of irregularities in the purchase of a Portable Stone Crusher by the petitioners, who were public servants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Special Judge had committed an illegality in ignoring relevant documents, which were produced by the Assistant Secretary (Irrigation Department) Govt, of Rajasthan, and which were not disputed. The court also found that the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Special Judge was justified in ignoring the aforementioned documents, which were relevant to the matter in dispute and which were produced by the Assistant Secretary (Irrigation Department) Govt, of Rajasthan? 2. Whether the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners? 3. Whether the delay in filing the challan violated the petitioners' fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 294 Cr.P.C. provides that where any document is filed before any court for the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. are clear and unambiguous, and that the intention of the Legislature is that the valuable time of the court should not be wasted in a case where the genuineness of a document is not in dispute. 3. The court held that the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners, as there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners had hatched a criminal conspiracy to de-fraud the Government or that they had committed any of the offences alleged against them. 4. The court held that the delay in filing the challan had violated the petitioners' fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders and the charges framed against the petitioners, and discharged the petitioners of the offences Under section 420, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and under section 5(1 )(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act.
JUDGMENT
1. - These petitions have been preferred against the order dated 22.2.95 passed by the learned Special Judge for Anti Corruption Department Case, Jaipur, by which he ordered to frame charge for the offences under sections 420, 120-B, 471 and 468 IPC and Under section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and the charges framed on 14.3.95 in pursuance thereof against the accused petitioners.
2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts are that in the basis of a news paper item publishing in `Hindustan Times' dated 31st July, 1984 regarding the irregularities in purchase of Portable Stone Crusher Shri G.C. Rai, Dy.S.P ACD, Bundi after conducting preliminary enquiry submitted report dated 23.3.87, whereupon FIR No. 33/1987 for offences Under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC and under section 5(1 )(a) with Section 5(2) of the Act was registered at ACD Out Post, Bundi against petitioner R.S. Khandelwal. Executive Engineer Irrigation Department, Sub-Division, Tonk. However after completion of investigation, a challan was filed on 9.6.92 in the court of learned Special Judge, ACD cases, Jaipur. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that sometime in March, 1979 they were party to a Criminal conspiracy to defraud the Government, that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy petitioner R.S. Khandelwal floated a short term notice dated 3.3.79 inviting tenders for the purchase of one portable stone crusher and its screening plant of jaw crusher, whereupon as many as eleven tenders were received by the stipulated dated i.e. 19.3.79. The lowest offer was of a firm from Gujarat. The next lower tender was that of M/s. Forgewell and Engineering Corporation, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 63,990/- with the stipulation to supply the goods within seven days and a one years guarantee against any manufacturing defect from the date of supply. Petitioner R.S. Khandelwal, after scrutiny of the tenders, by his letter dated 30.3.79 recommended to the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Ajmer that the tender of M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation, New Delhi be accepted. The S.E. had already issued sanction for the purchase of Portable Crusher by his letter dated 8.3.79. It is alleged that the notice inviting tenders was published only in news paper 'Rajasthan Patrika' and that the same was not sent for publication in `Nav Bharat Times', 'Hindustan Times' wid `Rastradoot' news papers. However, it was wrongly shown in the despatch register that the Nil was also sent for publication in the aforementioned news papers. It is alleged that petitioner R.S. Khandelwal placed a purchase order with M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation on 24.3.1979 without proper budget, estimate, sanction and without identifying the quarry and the site and even without depositing the earnest money from the said firm. Thus he superseded the Government procedure and practice prevalent in the department regarding inviting and opening tenders, it is alleged that before placing the supply order with M/s. Forgewell Engineering Corporation, the credibility of the said firm was also not ascertained. Shri R.S. Khandelwal released 75% payment amounting to Rs. 48,852.20 in advance on the basis of the RR and consignment documents and further released the remaining 25% amounting to Rs. 14,657.40 after deducting the earnest money amount of Rs. 2000/- without testing the operation of the Crusher simply on the basis of a false certificate issued by the petitioner Om Prakash Mathur, who was at that time posted as Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), Sub-Division, Tonk and Hanuman Sahai-Mechanic. It is further alleged that the said Crusher had a crack in the chamber block of the Engine, which was detected by later on and that the said Crusher could operate only for two hours sometime in September, 1981. Subsequently in September, 1983 the said Crusher was declared surplus and the same was transferred and credited to the
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
