Inderjit Singh Tandi vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Inderjit Singh Tandi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRA-S-712,742,883,712-SB-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-931-SB-2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate, Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Bindra, Advocate, Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vipul Goel, Advocate for, Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Shubhra Singh, Sr. Panel Counsel for the Respondent-CBI.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The case pertains to the alleged release of subsidy amounts in favor of bogus firms of Raj Kumar, who was the proprietor, by misusing their official positions as public servants. The accused persons, Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh, and Gurnam Singh, were working as SPIOs and General Manager in the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Amritsar. They were responsible for verifying the facts stated by the subsidy claimants and recommending, sanctioning, and disbursing the subsidy only to the genuine claimants. However, they allegedly verified forged and fictitious documents/bills of purchase of machinery for four bogus firms floated by Raj Kumar and facilitated the payment of subsidy amounts to him. The CBI registered an FIR against the accused persons and conducted an investigation, which revealed that the four firms were not in existence and that the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to facilitate the payment of subsidy amounts in favor of Raj Kumar's bogus firms.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond doubt. It noted that the investigation conducted by the CBI was based on inferences and that the Investigating Officer had not taken any original documents in possession during the investigation. The court also found that the photocopies of documents exhibited by the prosecution were not proved as per law. Furthermore, the court considered the fact that the subsidy was released in 1991 and that the FIR was registered in 1998, which was beyond the period of five years stipulated in the policy of the State Government for the units to remain operative. The court also took into account the fact that the accused persons were exonerated in a departmental inquiry conducted earlier, where no document verified by them was found to be fake or ingenuine.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond doubt. 2. Whether the investigation conducted by the CBI was proper and reliable. 3. Whether the photocopies of documents exhibited by the prosecution were proved as per law. 4. Whether the subsidy was released in accordance with the policy of the State Government. 5. Whether the accused persons were exonerated in a departmental inquiry conducted earlier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond doubt. It found that the investigation conducted by the CBI was based on inferences and that the Investigating Officer had not taken any original documents in possession during the investigation. The court also found that the photocopies of documents exhibited by the prosecution were not proved as per law. Furthermore, the court considered the fact that the subsidy was released in 1991 and that the FIR was registered in 1998, which was beyond the period of five years stipulated in the policy of the State Government for the units to remain operative. The court also took into account the fact that the accused persons were exonerated in a departmental inquiry conducted earlier, where no document verified by them was found to be fake or ingenuine.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court. The appellants were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Present four appeals are filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, holding appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh, Gurnam Singh and Raj Kumar guilty of offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC. In addition to this, appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh and Gurnam Singh were held guilty of offence under Section 13(1) (d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh were also convicted under Section 167 IPC as well as the order of sentence of even date, vide which all four appellants were directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 01 year under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, 02 years R.I. under Section 420 IPC, 01 year R.I. under Section 471 IPC, 01 year R.I. under Section 468 IPC and 02 years R.I. under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. Apart from this, appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 06 months under Section 167 IPC and to pay total fine of Rs.15,000/- by appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh each, fine of Rs.14,000/- by appellant Pritam Singh and fine of Rs.10,000/- by appellant Raj Kumar, in R.C. No.14 datd 12.0201998 under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that this Court took suo motu action on a newspaper item dated 13.05.1996 captioned as 'Ghost Units eating up subsidy' and while treating the same as writ petition, directed the CBI to conduct an investigation. In pursuance of the directions, CBI registered the aforesaid FIR against unknown officials/officers of Industries Department of Punjab Govt. and some private persons. Later on, during the investigation, it was found that accused Raj Kumar floated four bogus firms by the names of M/s Moon Industries, Chhatti Wind Gate, Amritsar, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation, Amritsar and M/s National Steel Industries and with a view to get benefit of the Industrial Policy and Incentive Code, 1989, commonly known as Subsidy Benefit Scheme, he approached the Industries Department, Amritsar claiming to have purchased machinery worth Rs.6,91,900/- from M/s Atul Traders, New Delhi for M/s Moon Industries, machinery worth Rs.8,11,500/- from M/s Charanjit Engineering, Putligarh, Amritsar for M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, machinery worth Rs.3,01,900/- from M/s Punjab Machine Tools for M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation and machinery worth Rs.1,25,800/- from M/s Atul Traders for M/s National Steel Industries. He forged false and fictitious documents/bills of purchase of said machinery for all the four firms. He filed applications for subsidy on the basis of forged and fictitious documents. At the relevant time, accused Pritam Singh was the General Manager, while Gurnam Singh and Inderjit Singh Tandi were working as SPIOs respectively in the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Amritsar. It was their duty to verify the facts stated by the subsidy claimants and to recommend, sanction and disburse the subsidy only to the genuine claimants. As per allegations in the final report, accused Gurnam Singh falsely verified the forged machinery bills and recommended the subsidy qua firms M/s Moon Industries, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries and M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation, while accused Inderjit Singh Tandi verified the bills and recommended the same qua firm M/s National Steel Industries. Accused Pritam Singh further recommended the subsidy and after it was allowed by the District Level Committee, of which he was also Member Secretary, issued the sanctioning letters to accused Raj Kumar and the subsidy amount to the tune of Rs.4,01,980/- was paid