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
| 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
The court confirmed that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to continue criminal proceedings for conspiracy and corruption, reinforcing the High Court's cautious exercise of inherent powers under....
At the stage of framing the charge, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence proposed by the prosecutor are not meticulously judged.
The need for a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that at stage of framing of charge, trial court is not to examine and assess in detail material produced by prosecution nor to consider sufficiency o....
Court established that criminal proceedings must be based on preliminary inquiries conducted by qualified expert committees, especially in medical negligence cases, to protect the rights of accused a....
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
Illegal gratification – In a case where investigation is completed, Court is not required to appreciate evidence for quashing criminal proceeding – To appreciate evidence is function of Criminal Cour....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.