Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah vs Union Of India Th. Cbi Raipur C.G on 10 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:11398
Digitally
signed by
RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
The date when The date when The date when the
the judgment is the judgment is judgment is uploaded on
reserved pronounced the website
Operative Full
02.12.2025 10.03.2026. -- 10.03.2026
CRA No. 493 of 2006
Jaffer Sadik, S/o. Mohd. Molvik, aged about 65 years, retired Manager
(Inspector), BSP Bombay Office, R/o. Plot No. 102, Block No. 5, Esland
Enclave Ernakulam Kochin. At present resident of Tumpalahil Chouvera
Alwai, District Ernakulam, State-Kerala.
--- Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur (M.P.) (Now
Raipur Chhattisgarh)
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.
Arpan Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate appeared through
V.C.
2
CRA No. 528 of 2006
Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah, S/o Pratap Chandra, Partner of Mici Metal
Industries, aged about-54 years, R/o 401B, Nilambag Kamal Apartment,
Shankar Gali, Kandiwali West Mumbai (M.H.)
—Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur (M.P.) (Now
Raipur Chhattisgarh)
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate appeared through
V.C.
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C.A.V. Judgement
1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2006 passed by the learned
Special Judge (C.B.I.) in Special Criminal Case No. 13/2004, they are heard
analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial
court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
In CRA 493/2006
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 120-B of R.I. for 01 year.
Indian Penal Code
Under Section 420 of Indian R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of
Penal Code Rs. 5,000/-.
Under Section 13(1) (d) R.I. for 01 year and fine amount
read with Section 13(2) of of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of
3
Prevention of Corruption payment of fine to undergo
Act, 1988 additional R.I. for 06 months.
(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
In CRA No. 528/2006
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 420 of R.I. for 02 years and fine amount
Indian Penal Code of Rs. 25,000/-.
Under Section 120 (B) of R.I. for 02 years. IPC Under Section 13(1) (d) R.I. for 02 years and fine amount read with Section 13(2) of of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of Prevention of Corruption payment of fine to undergo Act, 1988 r/w Section 120 additional R.I. for 01 year. (B) of Indian Penal Code.
(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the appellants is that the
accused D.B. Bhaskar Rao (died during the pendency of the case) was
resident of Bhilai Steel Plant at Bombay Office, the present appellant
Jaffer Sadik was Manager (Inspection) Bhilai Steel Plant at Bombay
Office and N.V. Krishnamurthy was General Manager (Material) Bhilai
Steel Plant at Bhilai and the appellant Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah
was a working partner of M/s. Mico Metal Industries Ltd. Bombay. The
main allegation/charge against the appellant Jaffer Sadik along with
D.B. Bhaskar Rao (died) and N.V. Krishnamurthy is that they have
rejected the material (seamless pipes) which was to be supplied by
one M/s Arvind Steel Corporation, Bombay at a lower price i.e., @ Rs.
3330/- per meter and has accepted the material of a supplier namely
4
M/s Mico Metal Industries at the price of Rs. 4495/- per meter and they
swindled Bhilai Steel Plant for self-enrichment. Thereafter, on
06.07.1991, the Bhilai Steel Plant had placed an order to M/s. Arvind
Steel Corporation, Bombay for purchase of 325 mtrs seamless pipes
along with certificate of IBR (Indian Boiler Regulation) @ Rs. 3330/-
per/mtr. However, it was alleged that M/s. Arvind Steel Corporation was
not in a position to supply the material to the BSP, because of the ban
of interstate IBR inspection facility by Maharashtra Government. It was
alleged on 16.03.1992, the main accused D.B. Bhaskar Rao issued a
tender inquiry for purchase of seamless pipes and on the same day,
five parties had given their quotations and a comparative statement
was also prepared. It was alleged that though M/s. Heavy Metal and
Tubes had quoted the lowest price, the main accused Bhaskar Rao
had allotted the work order in favour of M/s. Mico Industries @ Rs.
4495/- per meter and without the certificate of IBR and the seamless
pipes were accepted by the Bhilai Steel Plant and there was no
complaint in respect of the quality of those pipes, even those pipes
were used by the Bhilai Steel Plant. It was alleged that as the
information of the work contract came into the knowledge of M/s.
Arvind Steel Corporation, Bombay, and then they made an offer to
supply the same goods at the older rates i.e., Rs. 3330/- per meter,
which was eventually accepted and Jaffer Sadik has inspected the
goods (seamless pipes) of M/s. Arvind Steel Corporation and rejected
the same on 17.03.1992 on the grounds that upon visual inspection, it
was unable to correlate the markings with the test certificate, and that
the mentioned pipes were not pitted and were not up to the mark. It
was further alleged that the rejection memo Ex. P-25 was not issued in
5
a format and signature for acknowledgment of supplier was also not
obtained on it. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Special Judge
has not appreciated the fact that at the time of the alleged incident, the
appellant Jaffer Sadik was only in charge of inspection and his duty
was only to inspect the goods which are being purchased by the Bhilai
Steel Plant and comply with the standards and demanded
specifications of the goods, whereas the main accused i.e., D.B.
Bhaskar Rao was the in charge of Purchase and was the authority to
issue tender and purchase the said goods.
3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet
was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn,
committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in
the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the
appellant Jaffer Sadik for alleged commission of offence under
Sections 120-B of IPC, 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the learned trial Court framed
charges against the appellant Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah for
alleged commission of offence under Sections 420 of IPC, Section
120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act r/w 120-B of IPC. The appellants having abjured their
guilt, were subjected to trial.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the
accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in
which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their
innocence and false implication in the case. In their defence, the
appellants have adduced 02 witnesses.
6
5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on
record, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in
the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals
filed by the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 493/2006 submits that
the appellant has not committed any offence punishable with death or
imprisonment of life. The learned Special Judge ought to have
appreciated that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubts. The learned Special Judge ought to have
appreciated that very fact that at the relevant time, main accused
Bhaskar Rao, who was working as a resident manager (purchase) was
the authority to purchase the pipes and so far as the present appellant
is concerned, he was assigned the work of inspection. The learned
Special Judge has failed to appreciate the correlation between
purchase of the seamless pipes on higher rate from M/s Mico Metal
Industries Limited and the rejection of the goods of M/s Arvind Steel.
The learned trial Court has completely overlooked the statement of
PW-6 and PW-13 who are the material witnesses in the case. The
learned trial Court failed to see that there is no connection with Ex.
P/21 regarding the purchase of seamless pipes from M/s Mico Metal
Industries and causing loss to the Bhilai Steel Plant, whereby the
goods of M/s Arvind Steel Corporation was rejected. The learned
Special Judge ought to have appreciated that the appellant herein has
inspected the goods of the Arvind Steel Corporation on the basis of the
telex letter D-6 issued by the D.R. Bansal and this fact is supported by
PW-8 namely Shri N. Shriniwas. The learned trial Court failed to
7
appreciate that there is no evidence on the record to show that the
main accused person conspired with the appellant herein, therefore,
the appellant cannot be convicted of a charge under Section 120-B of
IPC when the matter has proceeded beyond the stage of conspiracy
and pursuant to such conspiracy offence have been committed. There
is no iota of evidence of hatching a criminal conspiracy against the
appellant regarding the purchase of the material from the M/s. Mico
Metal Industries The learned trial Court has failed to see that there is
no specific charge in respect of Prevention of Corruption Act framed
against the appellant herein. He further submits that there is no single
evidence on record in respect of bribery, therefore, no offence under
Section 13 (1) (d) is made out, even there is no allegation at all that the
appellant demanded bribe from the M/s. Mico Metal Industries for
rejection of the material of the Arvind Steel Corporation. There is no
evidence on record to show that the appellant herein by corrupt or
illegal means obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The
Impugned judgment is per se illegal, erroneous and contrary to law.
The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are perverse on
the state of evidence on record. The learned trial Court ought to have
appreciated this fact that the mens rea is a essential ingredient of the
offence under Section 420 of IPC and such mens rea must exist at the
relevant time. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the
very settled law as laid-down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there
should be a fraudulent or dishonest inducing of a person by deceiving
him, the per se deceive should be intentionally induced to deliver any
property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property or the person so induced to do anything which ordinarily he
8
would not do or omit to do if he was not so deceive. He further submits
that there is no wrongful gain by the appellant herein, therefore, no
offence under Section 420 is made out. Learned Special Judge ought
to have appreciated that no specific charge in respect of Prevention of
Corruption Act was framed against the appellant herein. He further
contends that there is no single evidence on record in respect of
bribery, therefore, no offence under Section 13 (1) (d) is made out,
even there is no allegation at all that the appellant demanded the bribe
from M/s. Mico Metal Industries for rejection of the material of the M/s
Arvind Steel Corporation. The impugned judgment is per se illegal,
erroneous and contrary to law. The findings recorded by the learned
Special Judge are perverse on the state of evidence on record. So, the
impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 528/2006 submits that in
this case, the order for the supply of seamless pipes was placed by the
Bombay office with M/s Arvind Steel Corporation, Bombay, including all
specifications and terms and conditions, and the order was duly
accepted by Arvind Steel Corporation. Since the pipes were urgently
required by the plant shop, both the delivery period and the quality
specifications were clearly fixed. However, Arvind Steel failed to meet
the required quality standards as well as the stipulated delivery
schedule. Although their request for an extension of time was granted,
they still failed to supply the pipes within the extended period and also
did not maintain the required quality. During visual inspection, Bhaskar
Rao found the pipes to be of inferior quality. Consequently, with the
approval of the main office at Bhilai, the order was ultimately cancelled.
9
As the supply of seamless pipes was urgently required in the shop,
repeated reminders were sent by the shop to the Material Supply
Section. Under these circumstances, the Bombay Office was directed
to invite fresh tenders and accordingly new tenders were called. Five
tenders were received in sealed envelopes by the Bombay Office and
M/s Mico Metals Industry, Bombay was one of the firms that submitted
a tender. After due scrutiny, the tender submitted by M/s Mico Metals
Industry was approved and the appellant, being a partner of M/s Mico
Metals, received the supply order through the Bombay Office. In the
terms and conditions of the tender, the appellant clearly specified all
relevant details, including the quality, rate, freight, discount, and other
particulars as required by the Bombay Office. The appellant supplied
325 meters of seamless pipes to the Bhilai Steel Plant. As the pipes
were urgently required, they were sent directly to the shop by the Bhilai
Management. After the pipes were received, payment of the cost was
made through the Bombay Office in accordance with the terms and
conditions mentioned in the appellant’s offer letter. He further submits
that there is not a single iota of evidence to suggest that the appellant
committed any fraud or entered into any collusion with any officer of
either the Bombay Office or the Bhilai (Main Office). The rate quoted in
the tender was accepted by the management and accordingly the
supply order was placed with M/s Mico Metals through its partner, the
appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot by any stretch of
imagination, be held responsible for the alleged loss of Rs.
3,49,407.50/- as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. The
impugned judgment is per se illegal, erroneous and contrary to law.
The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are perverse on
10
the state of evidence on record. So, the impugned judgment of
conviction is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the
impugned judgment submits that learned trial Court minutely
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly
convicted the appellants. Hence, these appeals are well merited and
no interference is called for.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost
circumspection.
10. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that it framed charges under
Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused D.B.
Bhaskar Rao, Jaffer Sadiq and N.V. Krishnamurthy and convicted the
co-accused under Sections 120B, 420/120B of IPC and under Section
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with
Section 120B of IPC against the accused Mahendra Pratapchandra
Shah and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the
learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as
decribed in para 01 of this judgment.
11. It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that at the time of the
incident, the appellant/accused D.B. Bhaskar Rao, Jaffer Saadik and
N.V. Krishnamurthy were working in the Bhilai Steel Plant as a public
servant and Mahendra Pratapchandra Shah was Proprietor of M/s
Mico Metal Industries Ltd. It is also not disputed that the accused D.B.
Bhaskar Rao (died) and N.V. Krishnamurthy rejected the material
11
(seamless pipes) which was to be supplied by one M/s. Arvind Steel
Corporation, Bombay at a lower price i.e., @ Rs. 3330/- per meter and
has accepted the material from supplier namely M/s. Mico Metal
Industries Ltd. @ Rs. 4495/- per meter.
12. As per the prosecution case, on 06.07.1991, the Bhilai Steel Plant had
placed an order to M/s. Arvind Steel Corporation, Bombay for purchase
of 325 meters of seamless pipes along with certificate of IBR (Indian
Boiler Regulation) @ Rs. 3330/- per meter, but due to the ban of
interstate IBR inspection facility imposed by the Maharashtra
Government, the said supplier was not in a position to supply the
goods. On 16.03.1992, the accused D.B. Bhaskar Rao who was in the
post of Resident Manager issued a fresh tender for the same work, in
which 5 companies have submitted their quotes and their comparative
statement was also prepared. It has been alleged that M/s. Heavy
Metal and Tubes had quoted the lowest price, but the work order was
allotted to M/s. Mico Metal Industries at the price of Rs. 4495/- per
meter and without the certificate of IBR. As the information of the work
contract came into the knowledge of M/s. Arvind Steel Corporation,
Bombay, they made an offer to supply the same goods at the older
rates i.e., Rs. 3330/- per meter which was eventually accepted and
Jaffer Saadik who was posted as Manager (Inspection) had inspected
the goods(seamless pipes) of M/s. Arvind Steel Corporation and has
rejected them on 17.03.1992 on the grounds that on visual inspection it
was unable to correlate with the markings with the test certificate and
that the mentioned pipes were not pitted and were not up to the mark.
It has been further alleged that the rejection memo Ex. P/25 was not
12
issued in a format which it was required to be and the signature for
acknowledgment of the supplier was also not obtained on it.
13. During the pendency of trial and appeal, the accused D.B. Bhaskar
Rao was died and the appeal filed by Jaffer Saadik and Mahendra
Pratapchandra Shah was pending for consideration.
14. (PW-06) Smt. Subha Arora who was Senior Manager of Bhilai Steel
Plant, Mumbai Branch identified the signature of D.B. Bhaskar Rao in
Ex. P/07 and also admitted her signature on D to D part in Ex. P/07
that how they invited new tender. She further stated in para 05 of her
examination-in-chief that Ex. P/08 is comparative statement and as per
this statement, M/s. Shah Kirtilal Moolchand and company was L1
(lowest rate), but this party did not provide rate as per specification and
after opening the tender, she wrote noting on Ex. P/09 on A to A part
and wanted advice for approval of tender and as per noting of D.B.
Bhaskar Rao, Resident Manager, the tender of M/s. Mico Metal
Industries was approved.
In para 16 & 17 she admitted as under:-
16. यह सही है कि जो भी कार्यवाही की गई है। वह कार्यधार के सामान मै
अनुक्रम रखाो गई है। मैने जो नोट शीट बनाई है वह अभिा० डी०बी० भास्कर
राव कहने पर नही बनाया है। यह भी सही है कि जो हमारे यहाँ पर प्रक्रिया
चलती है उसी के अनुसार नोटशीट तैयार कर अभि० डी०बी० भास्कर राव
के समक्ष रखी है I यह बात सही है कि पत्र दि० 17/3/92 / 21/3/92 के
अनुसार मै० अरविंद स्टील कारपोरेशान बाम्बे का सिमलेश पाईप
इस्सपेक्यानके लिये जो क्वालिटी थी वह उपलब्ध नही थी। और टैस्ट
13सर्टिफिकेट के अनुसार मारकिंग नही थी । यह पत्र पृ०ड 106 है । जिस पर
ए से ए भाग पर जाफर सिद्धकी के हस्ताक्षर है । इस पत्र की कृतिलिपि
एजी०एम० इन्सपेक्शान भिलाई रीजनल मैनेजर बाम्बे तथा श्री. डी० आर०
बंगाल मैनेजर परचैज भिलाई को दी गई है। इस पत्र के अनुसार, अरविंद
स्टील कारपोरेशान के सिमलेश पाईप क्वालिटी के ना होने के कारण और
सर्टिफिकेट मार्किक ना होने के कारण स्वीकार नही किये गये ।। यह बात सही
है अरविंद स्टील कारपोरेशन जब सिमलेश पाईप सप्लाई नही कर सके तब
माइक्रो मेटल इन्ड० और दस
ू रे चार और पाटियों से टेन्डर और हमारेकागजात के अनुसार मैसर्स माइको मैटल इन्ड० के सिमलैश पाईप की
खरीदी की गयीI और इसी सबंध मे मैने एज०ए० आफीसर के बतौर सब
दस्तावेज तैयार किये है और अभि राव के सामने रखे है । मैने कोई अलग से
या व्यक्तिगत रूप से कोई कार्यवाही नही की। इसी प्रकार से अभि राव ने भी
कागजात के अनुसार कार्य किया है अपनी तरफ से व्यक्तिगत रूप से कोई
कार्य नही किया है।
17.मै सब 91-92 में बाम्बे आ.पिस में पदस्थ थी । में डिप्टी मैनेजर के पद
पर पदस्थ थी । मुझे सिमलेश पाईप के खरीदी बिक्री के संबंध में जो भी
कार्यवाही हुई है उसकी पूर्ण रूप से जानकारी है। में अभियुक्त जाफर सादिक
को जानती हूँ। वे मैनेजर इस्पेक्शन के पद पर पदस्थ थे। प्र. पी. 21 के ए से
ए भाग पर जाफर सादिक का हस्ताक्षर है। में आज यह नहीं बता सकती कि
प्र.पी. 21 का अरविन्द स्टील कार्पोरेशन को प्राप्त हुआ था या नहीं। प्र.डी. 19
पर जाफर सादिक के हस्ताक्षर है फिर गवाह का कहना है कि वे कभी भी मेरे
साथ काम नहीं किये है उनका एवं हमारा डिपार्टमेंट अलग है। यह कहना सही
है कि इस्पेक्शन और परचेस डिपार्टमेंट दोनो अलग अलग हैं। यह कहना ही
14है कि टेन्डर इन्क्वायरी एवं टेन्डर से मैनेजर का कोई संबंध नही होता है।
यह कहना सही है कि प्र.पी.7 का नोटशीट टेन्डर इन्क्वायरी का मास्कर राव
द्वारा लिखना प्रारंभ किया गया था। यह कहना सही है माईको के साथ जो
कार्यवाही हुई है वह विधिवत हुई है कि डी. बी. भास्कर राव ने टेन्डर की
कार्यवाही इसलिए प्रारंभ की आरविंद स्टील कार्पोरेशन का माल रिजेक्ट हो
गया था। मुझे इसकी जानकारी नहीं है दि मे. अरविन्द स्टील कारपोरेशन के
पास सप्लाई के लिए माल नही था। मुझे इसकी जानकारी नहीं है कि
रिजेक्शन लेटर अरविन्द स्टील कार्पोरेशन को भेजा गया था। तथा मुझे
इसकी जानकारी भी नहीं है कि अरविन्द स्टील कारपोरेशन ने इसमें आपत्ति
की थी या नहीं I
15. PW-7 L. P. Singh working as Senior Manager in Plant Inspection
Department of Bhilai Steel Plant has stated about all proceedings and
in para 08 he admitted as under:-
“8.यह सही हैकि जब टैन्डर इन्क्वायरी का आर्डर पैलेस होता है उसमें मैनजर
इंस्पेक्शन का कोई कार्य नहीं रहता है । यह सही है कि जब मटेरियल तैयार हो
जाता है और पार्टी इन्वितेद करती है तब मैनेजर इंस्पेक्शन जाकर इंस्पेक्शन
करता है। यह सही है की एक्सपेक्टेशन और रिएक्शन दोनों रिपोर्ट महत्पूर्ण
होती है I मैनजर इन्सपैक्शान ने अगर रिजेक्शन का सर्टिफिकेट देता है और
पार्टी प्रोटेस्ट करती है तो बी स पी पार्टी उस माल का पुनः इंस्पेक्शन करा
सकती है I मेरी जानकारी में प्र पि 21 की जो रिएक्शन सर्टिफिकेट अरविन्द
स्टील के सम्बन्ध में दिया गया है उसमे बाद पुनः उसका रीइंस्पेक्शन नहीं
कराया गया है इंस्पेक्शन डिपार्टमेंट डिप्टी जनरल मैनेजर जो इंस्पेक्शन के
अधीन होता है I इंस्पेक्शन रिपोर्ट एक प्रति परचेस डिपार्टमेंट के एक प्रति दी.
15जी. म. इंस्पेक्शन की एक प्रति बॉम्बे ऑफिस में रखी जाती है I मैनेजर
इंस्पेक्शन का कार्य केवल मटेरियल का इंस्पेक्शन करना होता है और उसके
आधार पर इंस्पेक्शन सर्टिफिकेट देना होता है उसके बाद कोई कार्य नहीं रहता
है I
16. (PW-08) N. Shrinivas Rao, retired General Manager of Bhilai Steel
Plant has stated in para 05 which reads as under:-
05.जब माल का इंस्पेक्शन पार्टी के साइड में किया जाता है तब इंस्पेक्शन के
समय पार्टी का रिप्रेजेन्टेटिव भी होना चाहिए उसके प्रजेंस में ही इंस्पेक्शन किया
जाना चाहिए यह आवश्यक नहीं है की पार्टी इंस्पेक्शन करते समय साइड पर
पार्टी के रिप्रेजेन्टेटिव का हस्ताक्षर लिया जाना चाहिए I यदि माल को इंस्पेक्शन
करने वाले अधिकारी एक्सपेक्ट करता है तो पार्टी या उसके प्रतिनिधि के अलग
से हस्ताक्षर लेना जरुरी नहीं है इंस्पेक्शन सर्टिफकेट को देकर उसकी पावती
ली जाती है I और यदि रिजेक्ट किया जाता तो पार्टी या उसके प्रतिनिधि का
हस्ताक्षर लेते है I यदि किसी कार्यवश पार्टी या प्रतिनिधि उपस्तिथ नहीं है तो
रिजेक्शन के सम्बन्ध इंस्पेक्शन करने वाला बाई पोस्ट उसकी सुचना सम्बंधित
पार्टी को भेज सकता है I
17. (PW-12) K. Jairam, Senior Manager in Inspection Department of Bhilai
Steel Plant has stated all proceedings of inspection in his examination-
in-chief. The para 02 of his statement reads as under:-
” 2. जो मैने जांच की प्रक्रिया बतायी है उसका इंस्पेक्शन में ध्रुवल शब्द है ।मुझे
मैन्युल के बारे में जानकारी है लेकिन में अभी उसके सम्पर्क में नहीं हूँ इसलिए
मैं उसके बारे में अभी नहीं बता सकता। यह कहना सही है कि जांच की
कार्यवाही पार्टी के स्थान में किया जाता है। यह कहना सही है के पक्षकार के
16निवेदन पर पक्षकार के स्थान पर जाँच की कार्यवाही देख कर तथा परचेस
आर्डर के अनुशार मटेरियल का हिस्सा प्राप्त सैंपल आर्डर लेकर रसायनिक
परीक्षण के लिए भेजा जाता है। गवाह का स्वतः कहना है विजवल एवं
डायमेटिक परीक्षणं दोनो कराये जाते है । यह कहना सही है कि विसुअल
इंस्पेक्शन में सही नहीं पाये जाने पर उस आधार पर भी रिपोर्ट दिया जाता है ।
मटेरियल रिक्ट भी इस आधार पर किया जा सकता है । यह कहना सही कि
इंस्पेक्शन रिपोर्ट साधारण पेपर में दिया जाता है। यह कहना गलत है कि उसमें
पार्टी का हस्ताक्षर आवश्यक नही है । गवाह का स्वतः कहना है कि समान्यतः
पार्टी का हस्ताक्ष लिया जाता है पार्टी द्वारा इंकार किये जाने पर उसे दफ्तर
जाकर उसे डिस्पैच किया जाता है। यह कहना सही है कि इंस्पेक्शन रिपोर्ट को
डिसपेंच करने क काम डिसपेंचर का है। डिक्स इंस्पेक्शन को हस्ताक्षर करने के
बाद डिस्पेंचर एथार्टी को देने के बाद उसकी कोई जिम्मेदारी नहीं रहती है। यह
कहना सही है कि इंस्पेक्शन रिपोर्ट मिलने पर पार्टी माल रिजेक्ट किये जाने पर
आपत्ति ले सकती है । यह कहना सही है कि इंस्पेक्शन रिपोर्ट की कापी अपने
हायर एथार्टी एवं पर्चेस विभाग को भेजी जाती है। यह कहना गलत कि
इंस्पेक्शन, रिपोर्ट में माल रिजेक्ट करने का कारण देना आवश्यक नहीं है। यह
कहना भी सही है कि कभी कभी मटेरियल मंगाने के बाद उसकी जांच प्लांट के
अंदर की जाती है। यह कहना गलत है कि माल को उपयोग करने के बाद उसकी
जांच कराते है।”
18. The accused/appellant Jaffer Saadik has examined himself as DW-02
and has stated that he inspected the goods of M/s. Arvind Steel
Corporation, Bombay on 14.03.1992 and this inspection was done at
godown of party and he went with partner Shri Tarachand and 05
17
seamless pipes were not found according to the standard and he gave
his report vide Ex. P/27 and rejected the pipe of M/s. Arvind Steel
Corporation and he gave one copy of Ex. P/27 to M/s. Arvind Steel
Corporation and he also received acknowledgment of party and office
copy of this report was attached in Bombay Branch Office in file No.
50404/92 with purchase order and he filed application under Section
91 of Cr.P.C and C.B.I. produced this file. The copy of this letter is Ex.
P/21 and he admitted his signature on A to A part and representative of
M/s. Arvind Steel Corporation admitted his signature on B to B part of
the acknowledgment report, he rejected the seamless pipe, but
proceeding was not done according to his letter. Then, he again on the
direction of Resident Manager, D.B. Bhaskar Rao went to the godown
and in presence of Mahendra Pratapchandra Shah again inspected the
pipe and sent this pipe to scientific examination to TCR Engineering
Services, Bombay Laboratory and after receiving test report from
Laboratory on 28.03.1992, he sent his inspection report and on the
basis of that report, the Resident Manager purchased seamless pipes
from M/s. Mico Metal and after one month of this purchase, M/s. Arvind
Steel Corporation produced new pipe on 20.04.1992. Then, on the
direction of D.B. Bhaskar Rao, he again inspected the pipe of M/s.
Arvind Steel Corporation on his godown with Tarachand on 20.04.1992
and the sample was sent for Laboratory test and the test report was
received on 24.04.1992 and then, he gave his inspection report vide
Ex. P/28. He further submits that the records of each inspection were
maintained in the inspection call register by him and the practical
details are mentioned in the inspection certificate dispatch register.
18
19. It is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that at the time of
the incident, the accused, Jaffer Saadik, was responsible for
conducting inspections, as directed by his superiors. The accused
Jaffer Saadik inspected the material, submitted his reports and the
purchase order was issued by D.B. Bhaskar Rao. PW-06, Smt. Subha
Arora, Senior Manager of Bhilai Steel Plant, testified that all
proceedings were conducted according to office procedure and that
D.B. Bhaskar Rao followed the correct procedures with all relevant
documentation. There is no evidence, either oral or documentary,
presented by the prosecution to support the claim that the appellant,
Mahendra Pratapchandra Shah, conspired with the other accused.
Furthermore, no conclusive or legally admissible evidence has been
produced to establish any conspiracy between Jaffer Saadik and the
appellant, nor to show that they engaged in any illegal activities
together or with the other co-accused for their self-enrichment.
20. Section 120-B and Section 420 of IPC are held as under for ready
reference:-
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.–(1) Whoever is a
party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
with death, (imprisonment for life) or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision
is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
19criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or
with both.
420. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable fine.
21. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of C. Chenga Reddy and Others v.
State of A.P. reported1 held in para 56 which reads as under:-
“56. This takes us to one other aspect of the case. Mr. L.R.
Kapoor who conducted an inquiry from 4.4.81 to 6.4.81 and
submitted his report on :284.81 to the Government found
that there had been defiance of the authority of the
Superintending Engineer in the matter of execution of
work and spending of grants besides violation of codal
provisions and breach of departmental instructions and
circulars. He recommended departmental action against
the accused. However, before the accused could be
proceeded departmentally, the case was entrusted to ACB
and the accused were tried by the learned special judge
1 (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 193
20and were convicted and sentenced. Their appeals, except
for reduction of sentence, failed in the High Court. Both
the courts found that grave irregularities were committed
by the officers concerned in the matter of allotment of
work and the method followed by them was in violation of
the codal provisions departmental instructions and
circulars. The courts below have also found that the
officials had committed serious administrative
irregularities and lapses. Reference has been made both
by the trial court and the High Court to the codal
provisions i.e. A.P. PWD code, A.P. Financial Code etc. and
the circulars and instructions issued from time to time
which were respected in their breach by the official
accused. We have not found it possible to take a view
different than the one taken by the courts below in this
regard though in our opinion the breach of code
provisions or violation :of the circulars and instructions
and commission of administrative irregularities cannot be
said to have been done by the officials concerned with any
corrupt or dishonest intention. Learned counsel appearing
for all the appellants also during the course or their
arguments were unable to point out any error in those
findings and according to them in the established facts
and circumstances of the case, the irregularities,
administrative lapses and violation of the codal
provisions, could only have resulted in a departmental
action against the officials but criminal prosecution was
21not justified. Their argument has force and appeals to us.
Since, we have given the benefit of doubt to the accused
persons (department officials) and acquitted them, they
may seek reinstatement in service. However, as we have
agreed with the findings recorded by both the courts
below with regard to the violation of the codal provisions
and administrative lapses by the departmental officials, it
appears to us that a departmental enquiry may be justified
but in this fact situation, it would be an unnecessary
exercise. Learned counsel for the appellants have been
heard by us at length and they were unable to assail the
findings of the courts below regarding codal violations
and administrative lapse which may have caused some
loss to the exchequer also. What then should be the
course of action which should be followed in the facts and
circumstances of the case ? While the officials deserve to
be punished, should we remit the matter to the department
for awarding appropriate punishment or should we impose
the punishment ourselves and close the chapter, A court
of equity must so act, within the permissible limits so as to
prevent injustice. “Equity is not past the age of child
bearing” and an effort to do justice between the parties is
a compulsion of judicial conscience. Courts can and
should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy, in the facts
and circumstances of a given case, so as to further the
cause of justice, within the available range and forging
new tools for the said purpose, if necessary to chisel hard
22edges of the law. In our opinion in the established facts
and circumstances, it would be appropriate with a view to
do complete justice between the parties, in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
to direct that no departmental inquiry shall now be
initiated against the departmental officials for their
established administrative breaches and violation of the
codal provisions, in 1979-80. Consequent upon their
acquittal, the official respondent shall be reinstated in
service with continuity of service for all purposes but for
their established administrative lapses and breach : of
codal provisions etc., they shall not be entitled to any back
wages or any other type of monetary benefit for the period
they remained out of service. The suspension allowance, if
any, received by all or anyone of them shall however not
be recovered from them. This punishment appears to us to
be commensurate with the gravity of their lapses and shall
serve the ends of justice. Those of the officials who may
have reached the age of superannuation in. the
meanwhile, will get their pensionary benefits calculated on
the basis of their continuous service but they shall be
entitled to draw pension with effect from the date of this
order only. ”
22. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Sheetla Sahai and Others reported2 held in paragraphs 35 to 44 and
2 (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 617
23
47 which reads as under:-
” 35. Section 13 of the Act provides for criminal misconduct by
a public servant. Such an offence of criminal misconduct by a
public servant can be said to have been committed if in terms
of Section 13(1)(d)(ii-iii) a public servant abuses its position
and obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a
public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Sub-section
(2) of Section 13 provides that any public servant who
commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year
but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable
to fine.
36. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to mean:
“When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to
be done,–
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by
illegal means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement
24is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation.–It is immaterial whether the illegal act is
the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.”
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code provides for
punishment for criminal conspiracy. ”
37.Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is
punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, for the
purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy
read with the aforementioned provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act was required to establish
the offence by applying the same legal principles which
are otherwise applicable for the purpose of bringing a
criminal misconduct on the part of an accused.
38.A criminal conspiracy must be put to action inasmuch
as so long a crime is generated in the mind of an accused,
it does not become punishable. What is necessary is not
thoughts, which may even be criminal in character, often
involuntary, but offence would be said to have been
committed thereunder only when that take concrete shape
of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or
an act which although not illegal by illegal means and then
if nothing further is done the agreement would give rise to
a criminal conspiracy.
25
Its ingredients are
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to
be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is
not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
What is, therefore, necessary is to show meeting of
minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to
be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
39. While saying so, we are not oblivious of the fact that
often conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the
said offence substantial direct evidence may not be
possible to be obtained. An offence of criminal conspiracy
can also be proved by circumstantial evidence.
40.In Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration),
[1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731], this Court has quoted the
following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn. Vol 1):
“The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing
the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is
formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to
do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement
between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere
knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se
enough”
41.In State (NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
[(2005) 11 SCC 600], this Court stated the law, thus:
26
“101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the
cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be
taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused
rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the
circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances
should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in
regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the
conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or
conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough
to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its
execution.”
42.We may also notice that in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI
[(2003) 3 SCC 641], it was held:
“…Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb
immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a
combination of the means. The encouragement and support
which co-conspirators give to one another rendering
enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would
have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting
conspirators and abettors with condign punishment…”
43.In Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra [(2008) 6 SCALE 469], this Court opined:
“23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or
more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal
means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may
27not be possible to prove the agreement between them by
direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and
its objective can be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the
incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events
from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could
be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a
substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to
commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not
take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.”
44.Ex facie, there is no material to show that a conspiracy
had been hatched by the respondents. Mr. Tulsi would
suggest that the very fact that the respondent No. 1 being a
Minister kept the file with him for a period of six months so
as to see that the then Secretary Mr. M.S. Billore retires so
as to enable him to obtain opinion of another officer would
prima facie establish that he intended to cause pecuniary
gain to the respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
47.Even under the Act, an offence cannot be said to have
been committed only because the public servant has
obtained either for himself or for any other person any
pecuniary advantage. He must do so by abusing his position
as public servant or holding office as a public servant. In the
latter category of cases, absence of any public interest is a
sine qua non. The materials brought on record do not
suggest in any manner whatsoever that the respondent Nos.
28
1 to 7 either had abused their position or had obtained
pecuniary advantage for the respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10,
which was without any public interest. ”
23. In the light of above cited judgment and in the present case also, from
the statement of all witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has
utterly failed to prove any misconduct, any unlawful behaviour by public
servant and also failed to prove conspiracy between the public servant
and private accused Mahendra Pratapchandra Shah. The prosecution
witnesses have admitted themselves that all proceedings was done
according to the office rules and no illegality or irregularity was
committed by D.B. Bhaskar Rao and other co-accused and the
purchase order was issued in favour of M/s. Mico Metal Industries
according to the tender procedure of office, but the learned trial Court
did not appreciate all these facts and only on this ground that the
purchase order was issued in favour of M/s. Mico Metal Industries in
higher rate presumed that all the accused conspired with each other.
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove any active role
or misconduct of any of the accused and the officer of company
admitted that no irregularities or misconduct was done by D.B. Bhaskar
Rao. The learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and
wrongly convicted them for the aforesaid Sections.
24. Ex consequenti, both the appeals are allowed and the appellants
Jaffer Saadik & Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah are acquitted of all
charges levelled against them.
25. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the
appellants Jaffer Saadik & Mahendra Pratap Chandra Shah are
29directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in
the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be
effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in
the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant
judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of
notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
26. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGEU.K. Raju