Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUSTICE, J
A.P.Muthuramalingam – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
C.C.No. 2 of 2016 | Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 554, 568, 588 of 2019 | Crl.A.(MD).No. 390 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Thiru. R.Singaravelan, Thiru.Balasundaram
For the Respondents: Thiru.M.Karunanithi
Conviction for conspiracy and cheating under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC established through corroborative evidence, despite procedural challenges raised by the defense.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B and 420 - Conviction of accused for conspiracy and cheating in procurement of furniture for Southern Railway - Accused A3 sentenced to 4 years R.I. and fined Rs.25,000/-; A2 and A1 sentenced to 2 years R.I. each and fined Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively - Prosecution proved that accused conspired to defraud the Railway fund by issuing purchase orders for non-existent quantities and fabricating invoices - Evidence of approver corroborated by documentary evidence - Trial court acquitted A1 and A2 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but appellate court found sufficient evidence to convict them under the same. (Paras 22.1, 22.2, 10, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 228 - Compliance with procedural requirements in framing charges - Court found that charges were explained and understood by the accused - No miscarriage of justice established. (Paras 17.1, 17.2)
(C) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court has the authority to overturn acquittals if the trial court's findings are perverse. (Para 24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges against the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the defense counsel. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. prosecution's evidence and rebuttals. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. analysis of the evidence and procedural violations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. discussion on the tender process and supply discrepancies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. examination of the approver's evidence. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 7. legal principles regarding cheating and conspiracy. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. court's conclusions on the prosecution's case. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. final order and sentencing. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Madurai have filed these appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 554, 568, 588 of 2019 challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed against them vide impugned judgement dated 14.11.2019:
2.A3 has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
2.1.A2 has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:-
2.2.A1 has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
2.3. The CBI also has filed appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No. 390 of 2020 against the acquittal order passed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under section 13 (1)(d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
3. For better appreciation of the case, the appellants in the Crl.A. (MD).Nos. 554, 568, 588 of 2019 are hereafter referred to as accused Nos. 1 to 3 as ranked in C.C.No. 2 of 2016.
3.1. The CBI has registered the case in R.C.No.MA1-2014-A0050 on 17.12.2014, on the basis of the source information under section 120 B r/w. 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused and other person.
3.2.Accused No.1 was the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway.
Accused No. 2 was the Divisional Material Manager, Southern Railway.
Accused No. 3 was the Store Clerk of Trichirappalli Division, Southern Railway.
Accused No. 4 was private furniture supplier running business in the name of Adithyaa traders.
3.3. A1 to A3 worked in the Southern Railway Department during the period from 2007 to 2011. In the said period, broad gauge conversion work was undertaken at Villupuram – Vellore Section. During the said period, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, Tambaram through the letter dated 24.03.2010 authorized to procure furniture and other materials. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are bound to follow the procedures to procure the materials. Without following the procedure and also without following the instructions, all the accused conspired together to defraud the fund of the Southern Railway by issuing the purchase orders in favour of A4 and procured lesser number of furniture against the huge purchase order by fabricating forged invoices and delivery challan and acknowledgment as if full quantity as per the purchase order had been supplied. Without supplying the required quantity as per the purchase order, entire amount was disbursed to A4 and A4 after taking his share of the amount, handed over the balance amount to the third accused and thus, there was wrongful loss to the Railway Department to the tune of Rs. 20,70,025/- and wrongful gain to the accused. Therefore, CBI after investigation filed the final report against the accused under sections 120 (b) r/w. 420 of I.P.C. and 13 (1)(d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , before the learned Special Judge, (II Additional District Judge) for CBI cases, Madurai. The learned special judge taken on file the final report in C.C.No. 2 of 2016 and issued summons to the accused and the accused entered their appearance. After their appearance, copies and documents as mandated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them. Thereafter, charges are framed and the same was explained to the accused and all the accused ple
