These two appeals arise out of challan No. 5 of the Sessions Court file decided by the learned Special Judge Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the SJ).

The appellant, Shanti Swarup Malhotra, has been convicted by the Special Judge under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for having been guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty as provided for by S. 5. (1) (d),of the Act.

There are two other cases of a similar nature against the accused, but the learned judge has ordered the sentences in all the cases to run concurrently.

The appellant, Om Prakash, has been convicted under S. 420 Ranbir P. C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is that the appellant, Malhotra, was on the relevant date Director of Geology and Mining of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The office ubmitted a proposal to the appellant for obtaining some tools and machines and accordingly Malhotra called tenders or supply of a Cylinder Boring Machine, an Air Compressor and a few GI pipes. The tenders were called on 12-2-1966 and were to be opened in the presence of the enderers on 4-3-1966. The tender notice clearly provided that the tenderers should deposit a call deposit receipt equivalent to 3% of the cost of the articles ordered which would be refunded to the successful tenderer and treated as security from the successful tenderer. It was further provided that the security would be liable to forfeiture at he discretion of the appellant, Malhotra, if the firm concerned failed to comply with the supply order. In response to the tender notice the accused, Om Prakash, who was one of the so-called proprietors of the firm, Prakash Sales Corporation having its headquarters at 907, Rangmahal, SP Mukerji Marg, Delhi-6, submitted his tender for all the three articles. On opening the tenders, the appellant Malhotra accepted the tender of the accused, Om Prakash for all the three articles and placed an order with him for supply of the articles. This order was placed on 22-3-1966 and the firm was directed to make the supply by 25-3-1966.

In his tender the accused, Om Prakash, had stipulated that the rates would be charged for Jammu CST extra 90% through Bank against RR. In other words in his tender the appellant Om Prakash had clearly intimated to the Director that he was prepared to make the supplier if an advance payment of 90% was paid to him against the receipt. By his letter dated 24-3-1966 the Director accepted this condition of the appellant Om Prakash and placed an order for supply of the three articles. He also made it clear that 90% advance payment would be made against proof of despatch and the balance would be paid on receipt and inspection of the goods. The Director further ordered the firm to deposit a security of Rs. 100/- immediately before making the supplies. This supply order is Ex. P. G. and is admittedly signed by the accused Malhotra. Thereafter vide Ex. PH the accused Om Prakash informed the Director that the goods ordered had already been despatched and submitted a bill for payment of Rs. 2,157-30. In the case of supply of pipe fittings the Director by his letter Ex. PI (dated 24-3-1966) wrote to the firm that the supplies should be completed by 25-3-1966 and that a security of Rs. 400/- should be deposited Accordingly the accused, Om Prakash, sent his bill for these items totalling Rs, 7,622.46 out of which he claimed 90% advance payment. The letter enclosing the bill is marked Ex. PJ.

It may be pertinent to note here that in spite of the clear directions of the Director, the accused Om Prakash neither deposited the security of 3% as provided for in the tender notice nor the securities of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 400/- as dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document