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

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Lallukhum Fimate - Appellant
Versus
Cbi, Acb-imphal Branch - Respondent
Cril. Petition No. 36 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. W. Darakishwor, Sr. PCCG., for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Criminal conspiracy and cheating - Charges framed against the petitioner quashed; insufficient grounds outlined in the FIR for proceeding against the accused - Petitioner attempted to procure best equipment following proper processes and with PAB recommendations. (Paras 1, 7, 52, 56)

(B) Criminal Procedure - The High Court possesses inherent power under Section 482 to quash proceedings seen as an abuse of the process of law - Court must ensure allegations do not constitute an offence before proceeding. (Para 41)

(C) Fraud prevention - Mere rejection of a lower bid does not equate to conspiracy or fraud, provided all specifications are met by the selected bid. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired director at RIMS, faced charges for conspiracy in purchasing a Telecobalt machine at a higher cost than an Indian alternative, allegedly causing loss to the government; arguments centered around procedural failures in tendering. (Paras 1, 6, 52)

Findings of Court:
The court found no sufficient grounds for charges; the purchase followed necessary procedures in line with expert recommendations. (Paras 55, 56)

Issues: Whether allegations in the FIR substantiate a criminal offence warranting trial; examination of tender processes and specifications. (Para 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that no conspiracy was present as procurement was based on justified expert recommendations and due process was observed. Charges framed lacked a legal basis. (Paras 52, 56)

Result: Petition allowed, charges against the petitioner quashed.

Table of Content
1. criminal petition filed to quash order and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. charges framed based on cbi investigation findings. (Para 4 , 5)
3. petitioner's arguments against erred charge framing. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments highlight lack of mens rea and proper procedure. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. allegations of conspiracy and improper tender process. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. court's reflections on legitimacy of accusations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. legal standards for charge assessment and judicial discretion. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. expert decisions justifying machine procurement. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
9. discussion on evidence sufficiency regarding charges. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
10. court's rationale for quashing proceedings. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
11. clarification on inherent powers of high court. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
12. criminal conspiracy definition and legal implications. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
13. assessment of charges against the petitioner. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)
14. conclusion resolved through legal precedents. (Para 51 , 52 , 53)
15. final ruling quashing charges against the petitioner. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 8.9.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC) Act, Imphal West in Special Trial (PC) Case No.12 of 2016 and charges framed against him and the FIR in RC IMPH 2014 A 0005 YEAR 2014 registered under Section 120-B/420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.

2. The petitioner Dr. L.Fimate is the first accused in Special Trial (PC) Case No.12 of 2016.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the CBI, ACB, Imphal received information from a reliable source to the effect that in the year 2006, the Department of Radiotherapy, RIMS, Imphal received a project grant of Rs.5 crore for Regional Cancer Centre Project from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and that Dr. L.Fimate, the then Director, RIMS, Imphal (now retired) and Dr. Th.Tomcha Singh, Professor of Head of Department (Radiotherapy), RIMS, Imphal in conspiracy with each other and some unknown private persons and by abusing their official positions made undue favour to 6th respondent firm - M/s.MDS Nordion, Canada, through its Indian based dealer M/s.Kirloskar Theratronics Private Limited in purchasing Telecobalt machine flouting all norms. It has been found that Telecobalt machine was purchased at a very high price from Canada based company through its India based dealer M/s.Kirloskar Theratronics Private Limited ignoring low price quoted by M/s.Panacea Medical Technologies Private Limited representing Bhabha Atomic Research Centre [BARC], which had developed similar type of machine having similar specifications satisfying all the requirements of RIMS Hospital, Imphal. The specification of BARC machine was identical except for one or two points. For these points also M/s.Panacea Medical Technologies Private Limited has submitted that they will incorporate those features in their machine. The cost of the machine quoted by M/s.Panacea Medical Technologies Private Limited was Rs.1.59 crore including all taxes whereas the cost of the machine quoted by M/s.Kirloskar Theratronics Private Limited representing M/s.MDS Nordion Canada was Rs.2.47 crore excluding taxes of around Rs.20 lakh. Thus, there was a price difference of more than Rs.1 crore for which there is no proper justification incurring this additional expenditure except for causing undue favour to private party. Further, as per the contract, 10% of the price was to be released to M/s.Kirloskar Theratronics Private Limited only on the installation of the machine. However, the accused officials released this 10% amount also to private party without installation of the machine, thus causing undue favour to the private party and corresponding loss to the Government. From the facts and circumstances, it is appa

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