Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
State of M.P., through S.P.E. – Appellant
Versus
R. N. Karaiya – Respondent
Cr.A. No. 338 OF 2014
Decided On : 03-03-2022
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 15 - SECTION 120-B OF IPC - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - ATTEMPT TO MAKE PAYMENT OF FORGED BILLS - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 45 - OPINION OF WITNESS - REVERSAL OF FINDINGS OF ACQUITTAL - CRIMINAL APPEAL - DUTY OF COURT - FAIR TRIAL - INVESTIGATION - DEFECTIVE INVESTIGATION - DUTY OF COURT - SENTENCE - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - NOTICE - CONCURRENT SENTENCES - SURRENDER.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was accused of attempting to make payment of forged bills for maintenance work in a water supply project. The prosecution alleged that the respondent had granted permission to call quotations from only three contractors, that the quotations were opened by an unauthorized person, that no work was done, and that a false bill was presented. The respondent was acquitted by the trial court, which held that he had no role to play in the irregularities that occurred after the work order was issued.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal, holding that the respondent had played an important role in the irregularities from the very beginning. The court found that the respondent had granted permission to call quotations from only three contractors, that the quotations were opened by an unauthorized person, and that no work was done. The court also found that the respondent had approved the forged bill and that he had attempted to release payment for the work. The court held that the trial court had erred in relying on the opinion of witnesses and in failing to consider the material evidence on record.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent had played a role in the irregularities that occurred in the water supply project. 2. Whether the trial court had erred in acquitting the respondent. 3. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the respondent had played an important role in the irregularities from the very beginning. The court found that the respondent had granted permission to call quotations from only three contractors, that the quotations were opened by an unauthorized person, and that no work was done. The court also found that the respondent had approved the forged bill and that he had attempted to release payment for the work. 2. The High Court held that the trial court had erred in acquitting the respondent. The court found that the trial court had relied on the opinion of witnesses and in failing to consider the material evidence on record. 3. The High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal. The court found that the trial court had erred in its findings of fact and that the respondent was guilty of the offenses charged.
Final Decision: The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the respondent of the offenses charged. The respondent was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment dated 29-5-2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 01/2010 by which the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that one Sudhir Singh, resident of Tansen Nagar, Gwalior, made a complaint against Vivek Singh, the then Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Gwalior, that forged files of work worth Rs. 2 Crores have been prepared in the name of maintenance work of water supply. In the name of sanctioning the work and forged payment, illegal gratification in lacs has been taken. Accordingly, on the orders of Lokayukt, an enquiry was conducted by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and Divisional Vigilance Committee and prima facie the allegations were found proved and accordingly, the matter was handed over to Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal. Shri Kaptan Singh Nagar was appointed as investigating officer, and looking to the large number of files, Virendra Singh Tomar and Anil Kumar Agrawal, Inspectors were also authorized to investigate.
3. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. Sanction to prosecute co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar was obtained and accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the respondent, co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, R.B. Shrivastava, Narenda Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia, Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani.
4. By order dated 6-3-2010, the Trial Court refused to take cognizance against respondent, co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, Narendra Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia and R.B. Shrivastava in absence of sanction for prosecution, however, took cognizance against the co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani.
5. It is not out of place to mention here that the co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani were tried and they were acquitted by Judgment dated 29-7-2011, against which the State has filed Cr.A. No. 959 of 2013, which too has been heard simultaneously along with these appeals.
6. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the respondent, co-accused Narendra Singh Bhadoriya, and K.K.Shrivastava after taking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act and supplementary charge sheet was also filed against Ajay Pandvia had taken voluntary retirement whereas R.B. Shrivastava had stood superannuated.
7. Similarly, by the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has convicted Narendra Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia, K.K. Shrivastava and R.B. Shrivastava, against which they have filed Cr.A. No.s 429 of 2013, 440 of 2013, 441 of 2013 and 445 of 2013, which too have been heard simultaneously along with this Criminal Appeal.
8. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC against the respondent and co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, Ajay Pandvia, R.B. Shrivastava and framed charges under Sections 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 120-B, 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC against co-accused Narendra Singh Bhadoria.
9. The respondent and the co-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
10. The prosecution examined Kishorilal (P.W.1), Hari Singh (P.W.2), Yogendra Pal Singh Sisodiya (P.W.3), Mohan Singh Chandel (P.W. 4), Rajendra Singh Dikshit (P.W.5), Rajesh Sharma (P.W.6), Mohd. Ubbais Siddique (P.W.7), Sharad Chandra Garg (P.W.8), Kusumlata Sharma (P.W.9), M.R. Godhiya (P.W.10), Devendra Singh Chauhan (P.W.11), A. Pradhan (P.W. 12), Vimal Kumar Soni (P.W. 13), Suresh Singh (P.W. 14), Anil Agrawal (P.W. 15), and Virendra Singh Tomar (P.W. 16).
11. The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence.
12. The
The High Court has the power to reverse the findings of acquittal by a trial court, but it will only do so if there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived at by ....
(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....
Delayed justice is a form of denial of justice, and discipline, cooperation, and thorough preparation are necessary for timely disposal of criminal appeals. Additionally, no sanction is necessary for....
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of tainted money is insufficient to prove corruption under the Preventio....
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.
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Investigating officer is arm of law and plays pivotal role in dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order.
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
