1. These three appeals are preferred against the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Out of 6 accused, 3 accused, who are the Central Public Works Department (in short CPWD ) contractors, were imposed sentence of imprisonment till raising of Court (ITRC) for the offence under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The other three accused, who are public servants under the department of CPWD were convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI each and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months SI.

2. Brief facts leading to the above appeals:

A1 [Mr. B. Subramaniam], Executive Engineer, CPWD, Chennai Central Division-V, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, during the period from 12.04.2004 to 04.05.2007 along with the private contractors, namely, K. Mannar, V.K. Rajendran, V.K. Nedunchezhiyan [A2 to A4], all are brothers and P. Arumugam [A5] and P. Mohana Subramaniam [A6], Assistant Engineers [Planning] entered into the criminal conspiracy to cheat CPWD in the matter of awarding external painting works of CPWD Quarters, awarded external painting work to A2 to A4, without publishing the tender notice to the other Sub-Divisions /Divisions, based on the rates quoted by the contractors, spilt up the work into 7 parts and awarded the same for higher rate increasing the quantity of painting work than the quantity shown in the estimate cost put to tender.

3. A1 [B. Subramaniam],Executive Engineer has accorded technical sanction and A5 and A6 had prepared detailed tender estimate and agreements in favour of A2 to A4. Thus, the CPWD had incurred loss of Rs.24,56,420/- due to awarding external painting works of the CPWD Quarters, which was not required within 2 years of its earlier work.

4. The substance of the allegation against the accused persons was that A1 [Mr. B. Subramaniam] Executive Engineer, A5 [Mr. P. Arumugam] Assistant Engineer(Planning) and A6[Mr. P. Mohana Subramaniam], Assistant Engineer (Planning) had shown favouritism to the contractors A2, A3 and A4, awarded painting work of the CPWD Quarters, K.K. Nagar, during the year 2005 and prepared annual maintenance programme, wherein external painting works of CPWD Quarters Block No. 7 to 12 was awarded to V.K. Rajendiran for Rs.2,49,635/-; external painting work for block Nos.13 to 18 was awarded to V.K. Mannar for Rs.2,49,335/-; External painting work for block Nos.19 to 23 and 26 was awarded to V.K. Nedunchezhiyan for Rs.2,47,135/-; external painting work for block Nos.24,25 and 33 was awarded to P. Arumugam for Rs.2,53,139/- and external painting work for block Nos.27,28 and 29 was awarded to K. Mannar for Rs.2,49,580/- and external painting work for block Nos.30 and 31 was awarded to V.K. Neduchezhian for Rs.2,47,135/-.

5. According to the prosecution, these seven works should have been given as a single work under single agreement as it was done earlier besides type-II Quarters external painting works for the blocks has to be carried out once in four years only. While the painting works of these blocks was done only in the year 2003, the next painting work was due only after 2006. Whereas to make out a wrongful gain, external painting work was awarded to A2 to A4, pursuant to conspiracy between these accused and while awarding the contract to avoid the mandate of Tender Transparency Act, the work was spilt up into 7 contracts so that without press publicity, the tender was floated as if the work estimation cost is below Rs.2,00,000/-. In fact, the cost of the work has been inflated subsequently to the award of the contract and the contractors A2 to A4 were paid more than Rs.2,00,000/-, while Regulation permits the Executive Engineer to spilt up the work only if there is an adm