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

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Navendra Kumar And Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation CBI - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2015
Decided On : 04-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
D.S. Choudhury, Adv.

Mere marking of documents as exhibits does not prove their contents. In criminal law, strong suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof, and convictions for cheating or corruption require proof of dishonest intention and illegal pecuniary gain beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 477A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Allegations of excess payments and fraudulent certifications in public works - Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the requirement of proving its contents in accordance with law (Para 46).

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Suspicion vs. Proof - Suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for legal proof - The distance between "may be" true and "must be" true must be covered by clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence; mere conjecture and suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof (Paras 49, 50).

(C) Cheating - Section 415, IPC - An offence of cheating requires the existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the initial promise or at the very beginning of the formation of the contract (Para 52).

(D) Criminal Misconduct - Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2), PC Act - To convict a public servant, the prosecution must establish that the accused obtained for themselves or another any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their official position (Paras 54, 55).

Facts of the case:
Public servants were convicted by a trial court for allegedly conspiring with a contractor during the installation of an optical fibre cable project. It was alleged that they approved exorbitant rates and falsely certified the quantity of work executed—specifically regarding soil types and trench depths—leading to excess payments and loss to the exchequer. The prosecution's case relied heavily on a joint inspection report conducted approximately seven years after the work was completed.

Findings of Court:
The court found the joint inspection report to be unreliable and contradictory, noting that witnesses failed to support its contents. It was observed that the project area's hilly and rocky terrain justified the deviations from standard depths and the use of additional protection. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the public servants obtained any illegal pecuniary advantage or acted with dishonest intention from the start.

Issues: Whether deviations in the execution of public works and differences between estimated and actual costs amount to criminal misconduct and cheating, and whether an unproved joint inspection report conducted years after project completion is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mere exhibition of documents does not equal proof of their contents. Irregularities in the execution of work or deviations from estimates do not automatically translate to criminal liability unless dishonest intention and illegal gratification are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Because the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between suspicion and legal proof, the conviction was unsustainable.

Result: Appeals allowed and accused acquitted from the charges.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • corruption
      • criminal misconduct (Para 54, 55)
    • cheating
      • ingredients of cheating (Para 52, 53)
    • criminal conspiracy (Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)
  • practice and procedure
    • evidence
      • proof of documents (Para 45, 46, 47, 48)
      • standard of proof (Para 49, 50, 51)
    • criminal procedure
      • appeal (Para 1, 15, 56)
      • acquittal (Para 56)

Table of Contents

1. Appeal against conviction for corruption and cheating in telecom project — Alleged excess payments — Conviction reversed by appellate court. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )

2. Appellants argued no evidence of conspiracy or excess payments; prosecution relied on joint inspection report and alleged deviations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )

3. Appeals allowed, accused acquitted of all charges, bail bonds discharged. (Para 56 )

4. What is required to prove a document when it is exhibited in court?

Mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with proof; the document must be proved by evidence, either primary or secondary. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )

5. What are the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC?

Deception of a person, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property, and intention to deceive at the time of making the promise. (Para 52 , 53 )

6. What must the prosecution prove for criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

That the accused obtained for himself or another a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, or by abusing his position as a public servant. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 )

7. Can suspicion replace proof in a criminal trial?

No, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof; there must be clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 )

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

As all the appeals arose from the same judgment in special case 15/2006 they are taken up together and being disposed with this common judgment.

Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 02/2015; Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. Appeal 04/2015 and Mr. M. G. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 05/2015.

Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, CBI.

2. During 1995-96 the Department of Telecommunications, here-in-after called DoT, Government of India, decided to provide Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) Communication link on Imphal Moreh route in the state of Manipur. A survey of the route was conducted; a Project Estimate was prepared & sanctioned. The total route length of the section is 108 kms. which was divided into 27 sub-sections of 4 kms length each. The tenders were invited and the work was executed through contractors separately for each sub-section. The terms, conditions & specifications of work are mentioned in the tender document. The agreement was executed with the successful contractors. The over-all in charge of the work was Divisional Engineer (DE) and the Government is represented by him. The Sub-Divisional Engineer represents the Government at the site of work. The JTO supervised the day to day work at site. The measurements were recorded by JTO in MB and bills were prepared by him. The cent percent work was checked by the Site Engineer (SDE). The bills were pre-checked by JAO, passed by the DE; counter signed by the Director and paid by the concerned Accounts Officer.

3. The depth and protection of the cable was verified as per route index diagram three times immediate after execution of the work. The cable was handed over to maintenance unit, coming to an end the responsibility of the OFC officials. After completion of trenching and laying of HDPE pipes in the year 1998, the route was given for acceptance testing in the year 1999. The route was found to be satisfactory.

4. As per the survey report, as the entire sub-section fell in the hilly and rocky area it is not possible to lay the cable at the standard department and hence the RCC protection had to be given over the cable. Hence acceptance testing of the OFC route had to be done by the T&D Circle. After successful completion of acceptance testing, the route was handed over to the Eastern Telecom Region for maintenance purposes.

5. An FIR was lodged by the Inspector of Police of the CBI, Silchar on 14.09.2001 to the effect that they got a reliable information that the accused public servants and different contractors while laying optic fibre cable which was awarded by the Divisional Engineer (OFC) to different contractors during 1995-96 for execution in different subsections of the Imphal-Moreh route by paying excess amount to those contractors against approved rates and the tendered quantities of the work. The excess payments were made on account of deviations and in quantity of works and increase in the quantity of the works including unauthorized payment against some items which were not tendered. Agreements were made without proper approval and against rules and guidelines.

6. It is alleged that appellants while working in their respective capacities by abusing their official position and in connivance with the other officials and the contractor (M. S. Deol was awarded the contract to execute the OFC laying in respect of SS 20) thereby caused undue loss to the exchequer by committing the following omissions and commissions.

(1) Approval of tenders at exorbitant rates much higher than the estimated rates.

(2) Deviations in the quantity of hard and rocky soil by increasing the same much more than the quantities indicated in the tenders, certifying the execution of increased quantities and causing payments accordingly by passing the questioned bills, apparently because the rates for these items were much higher than the estimated rates.

(3) Deviatio








































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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