Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Surendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Cr. Appeal No.1168/2019, Cr. Appeal No.1173/2019, Cr. Appeal No.1183/2019 arise out of RC Case No.15(A)/2009 and Cr. Appeal No.1166/2019, Cr. Appeal No.1167/2019 and Cr. Appeal No.1172/2019 arise out of R.C. Case No.17(A)/2009-R. Since all these appeals raise common question of facts and law and therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by the common judgment.
2. Gravamen of allegation as disclosed in the prosecution case of both RC Case No.15(A)/2009 and RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R is that bitumen used in road construction was not procured from Public Sector Unit (PSU) as per the terms of the work contract, but from outside sources and the payment was released to the contractors on fake and forged invoices purported to be issued by PSU.
3. Engineers Surendra Prasad and Vindhyachal Singh @ Bindhyachal Singh are alleged to have counter signed the fake bitumen invoices in criminal conspiracy with contractor Upendra Prasad for release of bills to the tune of Rs.85,91,443/- in RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R. Bitumen was procured for the execution of work contract for improvement of Bano PWD Road to Pabura Nimtur Pangur Path for 10 Kms.
Wrongful loss is not a necessary ingredient for establishing the offense of forgery; the mere act of using forged documents suffices to constitute the offense.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires stronger evidence than prima facie for summoning additional accused; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Corruption convictions require incontrovertible evidence; mere allegations without substantial proof are insufficient for establishing public servant misconduct.
In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available.
(1) It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in prosecution case, same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court. Supposition, surm....
The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of cheating and conspiracy, including dishonest intent and the specific role of accused in the alleged fraud.
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....
The court established that allegations of cheating and forgery require a clear demonstration of fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction, and that the existence of a civil remedy does not pre....
In tender-related fraud cases, a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, allowing for charge framing even without direct evidence.
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
