SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF  ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
 
Praveen Pratap Singh And Another – Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau Of Investigation Acu-I New Delhi – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 478 of 2025, CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 479 of 2025
Decided On : 09-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon
For the Respondent: Anurag Kumar Singh

The court upheld charges of conspiracy and cheating against public officials for causing financial loss to the Government through corrupt practices in contract awarding, emphasizing that sufficient evidence warranted a trial.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 420 - Criminal conspiracy and cheating - Revisions challenging rejection of discharge applications - Court found ample evidence indicating criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position leading to wrongful gain and loss to Public Exchequer - Charges were upheld. (Paras 3, 13, 41)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 - Scope of revision - Revisional court cannot interfere with lower court's findings unless there is illegality or perversity. (Paras 3, 41)

Facts of the case:
The revisions arose from CBI FIRs alleging corruption in the awarding of contracts related to canal construction, involving NPCC, UCC, and others, resulting in significant financial loss to the Government. (Paras 5, 14)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's rejection of discharge applications was upheld due to sufficient evidence of conspiracy and financial misconduct among the accused. (Paras 13, 41)

Issues: Whether sufficient grounds exist for discharge from criminal charges based on the evidence of conspiracy and cheating. (Paras 3, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence presented warranted trial, as it indicated a clear case of conspiracy and financial misconduct, and that the absence of a private complaint does not negate the state's prosecution rights. (Paras 32, 41)

Result: Revisions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. corruption and conspiracy in public contracts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. similar charges in separate revisions. (Para 14 , 15)
3. validity of agreements and subletting contracts. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
4. nature of contractual obligations and subletting. (Para 22 , 24 , 27)
5. definition and implications of cheating under ipc. (Para 30 , 32 , 39)
6. final dismissal of revisions. (Para 41)

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party- Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed counter affidavits and the revisionists have filed rejoinder affidavits in both the cases, which are taken on record.

3. Criminal Revision no. 478 of 2025 has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., challenging the validity of an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI, Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.1600002/2014 arising out of RC-AC1-2007A0002 under Section 120 -B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and 13(2) , 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- CBI/ACB, Lucknow, whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioners’ application for their discharge.

4. Criminal Revision no. 479 of 2025 has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., challenging the validity of an order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI, Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.1600003/2014 arising out of RC-AC1-2008A0003 under Section 120 -B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and 13(2) , 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- CBI/ACB, Lucknow, whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioners’ application for their discharge.

5. Briefly stated, facts of the giving rise to Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2025 are that CBI had lodged the aforesaid FIR on 23.02.2007 against (i) unknown officials of NPCC Ltd. (National Project Construction Company Limited) Delhi and Faridabad, (ii) M/s UCC, 29, Pitambar Nagar, Unnao, U.P. and (iii) others unknown, stating that a source information had been received about corruption in construction of Adwa-Meja link Channel, Bansagar Canal Project in Unnao Region, U.P. which revealed that National Projects Construction Company Limited (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘NPCC’) is a public sector Company under the administrative control of Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. It is primarily responsible to carry out construction of civil works and canal systems etc. On 27.05.2005, the Irrigation Department of Government of U.P. had awarded a contract to NPCC for construction of the aforesaid canal at a cost of Rs.14,60,62,604/-. Certain officials of NPCC entered into a criminal conspiracy with a private construction company namely, M/s Unnao Construction Company, Unnao, U.P. (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘UCC’) and they sublet the contract to UCC for Rs.13.82 crores. UCC further sublet the contract to another private Company namely, M/s Sat Sai Earth Works, New Delhi for Rs.7.16 crores i.e. almost half the amount of contract value of NPCC and thereby caused huge wrongful gain to M/s UCC and corresponding loss to the Public Exchequer.

6. The FIR further states that the Unit Officer, NPCC, Kanpur conducted a site inspection on 23.04.2005 and submitted the rates for excavation work ranging from Rs.300/- to Rs.340/- per cubic meter for preparation of a bid to be submitted by NPCC to the Irrigation Department of Government of U.P. NPCC invited limited tenders on 21.04.2005 from eight firms, including UCC, for pre-tender tie-up for the said work. Out of the eight firms, only UCC submitted its tender on 27.04.2025 quoting rates ranging from 97.5 per cubic meter to 266 per cubic meter for excavation work.

7. A note recommending a profit margin of 5.3% against the total cost of the work, as quoted by UCC, was



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top