Sie sind auf Seite 1von 188

1

INTHECOURTOFSH.R.P.PANDEY SPECIALJUDGE01(PCACT)CBI:ROHINI:DELHI CorruptioncaseNo.:3/2008 CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATION Vs. 1. SukhRamS/oSh.Bhavdev, FormerMinisterofStatefor Communication,Govt.ofIndia, NewDelhi. 2. DevinderSinghChoudhary(Sincedeceased) S/oSh.LalChand, Chairman,HaryanaTelecomLimited, Kherisadh,Rohtak, R/o574/13,VikasNagar, SonepatRoad,Rohtak. DateofRegistrationofFIR:22.11.1996 DateofFramingofCharge:01.06.2002 FIRNo. :RC1(A)/96ACU(V) UnderSection :120BIPCr/wSection13(2)r/w 13(1)(d)ofP.C.Act1988and U/s7and12ofP.C.Act1988. Arguments concludedon :05.11.2011 DateofOrder :17.11.2011 CASEIDNo. :02404R0077291998
Contd....

JUDGMENT
1.

Brieffactsasperthecaseofprosecutionasgiveninthe

charge sheet are that an FIR bearing no.RC3(A)/96 was registeredwithACIIVBranchofCBIagainstaccused/SukhRam, the then Minister of State for Communication {MOS(C)}, on 13.08.1996. A search warrant was obtained by Investigating Officer (IO) of that case from the court of Sh.Dinesh Dayal, Ld.Spl.Judge(CBI),Delhitosearchthehouseofaccused/Sukh RamatShyamKhetar,Mandi(H.P.).Thatsearchwarrantwas endorsedbyIOinthenameofSh.BNJha(PW25) Dy.SPof CBI who along with his subordinate staff reached Mandi on 14.08.1996. On reaching there, he arranged independent witnesses,twofromStateBankofIndia(SBI),Mandiandthethird witnessfromStateBankofPatiala(SBOP),Mandi. Itwasalso decidedthatthesearchwastobeconductedatthehouseofthe accusedinMandi,on16.08.96.On15.08.1996,SPofCBISh.K

Contd....

LMeenaalsoreachedMandiinordertopersonallysupervisethe searchoperation. Thetwowitnesses,namely,S/Sh.KKGoyal andHarishKapoorfromStateBankofIndia,Mandi,reportedto Mr.Jhaat6.30a.mon16.08.96. On16.08.96,thesearchteam along with Mr.Goyal and Mr.Kapoor reached the house of the accused at Mandi. Two persons, namely, Veer Singh and Rampalwerealsopresentthereatthehouseofaccused/Sukh Ram. TheinstantFIRNo.RC1(A)/96ACU(V)isanoffshootof the incriminating material which was recovered from Mandi, houseofaccused/SukhRamandfurtherinvestigationcarriedout byCBI.

2. FIR No.RC1(A)/96ACU(V), was registered on 22111996

against accused/Sukh Ram, Former Minister of State for Communication,Govt.ofIndia,NewDelhiandhiscoaccused/ DevinderSinghChoudhary,Chairman,HaryanaTelecomLimited,

Contd....

Rohtaku/s120BIPCandSec.13(2)r/wSec.13(1)(d)andSec.7 and12ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct,1988(forshortPC Act) alleging that accused/Sukh Ram, during 19951996, while workingasUnionMinisterofStateforCommunication{forshort MOS(C)}, being a public servant, in conspiracy with his co accused/Devinder Singh Choudhary, Chairman of M/s Haryana TelecomLimited, (forshortHTL)Rohtak, bycorrupt orillegal means and by abusing his official position as public servant, caused pecuniary advantage to himself and to M/s Haryana TelecomLimited, Rohtak, inthematterof procurementof3.5 Lakh Conductor Kilometers (for short LCKM) of Polythene InsulatedJellyFilled(PIJF)cablescostingaboutRs.30crores. Accused/SukhRamalsoobtainedgratificationotherthanlegal remunerationsfrom DevinderSinghChoudhary(forshortD S Choudhary), Chairman of H.T.L., as a motive or reward for showingthefavourtothesaidfirm.

Contd....

3. Accused/SukhRamjoinedtheCouncilofMinistersoftheGovt. of India on 2792 and functioned as Minister of State for Communication with independent charge from 18193 to 16596.HewasalsoaMemberofParliamentfromMandiLok Sabha Constituency of Himachal Pradesh. At the time of registrationofthisF.I.RhewasMemberofLegislativeAssembly ofHimachalPradesh.Accused/D.S.Choudharywasworkingas ChairmanofM/sHaryanaTelecomLtd.,Rohtak(HTL)Hewas also the President of PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry, NewDelhi.

4. Itisfurtherallegedinthechargesheetthatthedepartmentof Telecom,Govt.ofIndia, NewDelhifloatedtendervidetender inquiry No.1421/94 MMT (MMS) dtd. 30111994 for procurement of 352 lakh Conductor Kilometer (LCKM) of

Contd....

Polythene insulated jelly filled (PIJF) cables for Mahanagar TelephoneNigamLimited (forshort MTNL) andDepartment of Telecommunication(forshortDOT).Thetenderwasopenedon 2411995andtherewere27companieswhosubmittedtheir bids.S/ShriA.K.Jedhkey,ADG(ST),O.P.Bibra,ADG(MMY) andVijayRajpalAD(MMY)constitutedthebidopeningteam andninebidswerenotreadoutfortechnicalreasonslikewant oftypeapproval,bidsecurity,etc.andthebidsoftheremaining 18 parties including HTL were sent to Tender Evaluation Committee(TEC)TheTECwasheadedbyAdvisor(Production) asChairman,whileDDG(PF)wasaMember andDDG(MMII) was MembercumConvenor. The TEC examined various technical and financial aspects of tender, held various deliberations for approval of Telecom Commission and processingofthepurchaseproposal.

Contd....

5. Thesaidtenderwas originallyfor352LCKMbutthequantity wassubsequentlyrevisedto359.29LCKMduetodecipheringof the sizewise quantities of the different sizes of cables in kilometers. TherequiredquantityofPIJF cablesfortheyear 19951996was260LCKMcalculatedattherateof8CKMper line + 10% for maintenance for 29.44 Lakh lines. The said quantity ofprocurementofcablewasfurtherrevisedto288.72 LCKMcalculated@8CKMperline+10%fornetadditionsof exchange capacity by 3280940 lines. This requirement was furtherenhancedby98.43LCKMduetoadditional requirement @3CKMperlinefor3280974linesmakingthegrandtotalof requirementas387.15LCKM.

6. Againstthesaidrequirementof387.15LCKMtheVLFCellhad alreadypurchased85LCKMondeferredpayment.Besides,the DOThadpurchased40LCKMandMTNL18.56LCKM,bothon

Contd....

cashpaymentonadhocbasis. Thus thetotal cablealready purchased was 143.56 LCKM and there was a balance requirementof243.59LCKM. Out ofthetotalrequirement of 387.15 LCKM, MTNL was allocated 57.61 LCKM while DOT wasallotted329.54LCKM.

7. Outof329.54LCKMtobepurchasedforDOTtheyhadalready purchased125 LCKM(85LCKMondeferredand40LCKMon cash)andthereremainedabalanceof204.54LCKMcableto bepurchased.Outofthis,89.63LCKMwastobepurchasedon cashand114.91LCKMondeferredpaymentbasis, inviewof thefinanceavailablewiththedepartment.

8. Outof57.61LCKMtobepurchasedbyMTNLtheyhadalready purchased18.56LCKMincash (againstauthorizationof18.74 LCKM i.e. 0.18 LCKM less purchased) and there remained a

Contd....

balanceof39.05LCKMonlytobepurchased.Outofthis39.05 LCKM, 30.74 LCKM was to be purchased on cash and 8.31 LCKMondeferredpayment,inviewofthefinancesavailablewith thedepartment.

9. The total proposedpurchaseoncashasperTECwas178.93 LCKMandtheyhadalreadypurchased58.56LCKMoncash. Thus, there remained a balance of 120.37 LCKM (178.93 58.56) tobepurchasedoncash. SinceMTNLhadpurchased 0.18LCKMlessthanitsauthorizedquantitythetotalrequirement forpurchaseincashbecame120.370.18=120.19LCKMonly.

10.Sh. R.P. Hans, Dy. Director General, MM II submitted a note dated26995forprocuring178.93LCKMcablesoncashbasis fortheyear199596. Thisrecommendation wasapprovedby theTelecomCommission.

Contd....

10

11.Accused/SukhRam,thethenMinisterofState(Communication), videhisnotedated16793hadorderedtheChairmanTelecom Commissionthatafterthefinalizationofeverytenderandbefore theissueofpurchaseorder,everycasemaybeputuptohimwith anotefromtheChairman,TelecomCommission,givingsummary ofthehistoryofthecaseandexplainingdelayintimetakenfor finalizationofthetender.Inviewoftheseinstructionstheabove proposalwasplacedbeforeaccused/SukhRam,thethenMinister ofStateforCommunicationforfinalapproval.

12.Accused/Sukh Ram, the then Minister of State for Communicationvidehisnotedated30995observedthatonly6 months wereleftforsuppliestobe effectedduringthecurrent financial year 199596 for meeting the targets but orders proposed on some of the firms were far in excess of their

Contd....

11

manufacturingcapacityforsixmonthsandfurthersupplieswere alsolikelytobeoutstandingwiththefirms.Hedirectedthatthe allocation may be reworked out taking into account firmwise capacityforsixmonthsasderivedfromtheirannualcapacityas onthedateofopeningofthetender,supplyrecordagainstlast year's allocation, supplies made till date against orders on deferredpaymentandadhocordersplacedearlierandbenefit oftaxconcessions,ifany,whichmayresultinsavingtoDOT. 13.Sh.NarenderKumar, DirectorMMS,incompliancetothesaid directionsofaccusedSukhRam,reworkedthewholeallocation and put up a note dated 18.10.95 giving allocation of the quantitiesofcables.AspertheorderofMOS(C)theallocationto firms were restricted to their six months' capacity which generated over flow of quantity totaling to 15.85 LCKM. Sh. NarenderKumarproposedthe reallocationoftheoverflowto

Contd....

12

the firmshaving sparecapacityandalsotothefirmgivingtax concessions(M/sSterliteIndiaLimited,Silvassa)toDOT.The capacityofM/sHTL,ason24195i.e.thedateofopeningof tenderwas14LCKM.Therewasabacklogof2.57LCKMfrom theordersplacedin 199495. In199596 anorderof 4.59 LCKM(i.e.2.37LCKMondeferredpaymentand2.22LCKM oncashpayment)wasplacedonthem.Outofthistotalquantity of7.16 LCKM, M/sHTL couldsupplyonly3.67 LCKMupto September1995,whichwas51.26%oftheordersinhandand therewasabalanceof3.49LCKMtillSeptember,1995.Assuch Sh.NarenderKumarinhisabovementionednotepointedoutthat thesupplypositionofM/sHTLwasprecariousandnoquantity out of over flow was recommended for allocation to this firm. Sh.Narender Kumar proposed for allocation of 120.19 LCKM since 58.56 LCKM was already purchased/ authorized for purchase ( i.e. 40 LCKM by DOT and 18.56 LCKM by MTNL

Contd....

13

whichhadauthorizationtopurchase18.74LCKM).Thisnotewas finallyapprovedbyChairmanTelecom.on241095andthefile wasputuptoaccused/SukhRam,MOS(C).

14.ItisfurtherallegedasperchargesheetthatAccused/SukhRam, then Minister of State for Communication, vide his note dated 31195 while approving the said allocation, as approved by Telecom Commission, dishonestly and with a view to give wrongful gain to M/s HTL enhanced the allocation quantity of 120.19 LCKMby about10%makingatotalof132.19LCKM, withoutgoingintothefinancialaspectofthepurchaseandalso without taking concurrence from the finance and out of this increasedquantityof12LCKMhemadeallocationof3.5LCKM toHTL.

15.Thus,itisallegedthattheenhancementofprocurementquantity

Contd....

14

by 10% making further requirement of 12 LCKM was without recommendationofthedepartment,andwithoutconsideringthe financial implication and further, its distribution was totally arbitraryandwithoutjustificationandthequantitywasallottedto thefirmspickedupbyaccused/SukhRamhimself. Itwasalso against the parameters laid down by accused himself in his previous note dated 30.9.95. Accused/Sukh Ram deliberately ignoredtheproposalofthedepartmentthatthesupplyposition of M/s HTL was precarious and the Department had not recommendedforgivingitanyquantityoutofoverflow.Thecost ofsoallotted3.5LCKMcabletoM/sHTLcomestoRs.30crores approximately. Thus,itisallegedthatapecuniary advantage waswrongfullyallowedbyaccused/SukhRamtoM/sHTLofco accused/DevinderSinghChaudharyinthismanner.

16.Inviewofthesaidallocationmadebyaccused/SukhRam,M/s

Contd....

15

HTL was issued a letter of intent No. 20360/94 MMS dtd. 101195for supplyof7.01LCKMofcablewhichincludedsaid 3.5 LCKM. HTL was required to supply 3 LCKM to Himachal Pradeshcircle,1.24 LCKMtoHaryanacircle, 2.19 LCKMto J&Kcircleand0.58 LCKMtoMTNL,thesupplyofwhichhad alreadybeenmadeandpaymentreceived,whichincludedsupply ofsaid3.5LCKMgrantedbyaccused/SukhRam. 17.Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, while conducting search of the house of accused/Sukh Ram situated at Mandi (HP), during investigation of case No. RC3(A)/96ACU(IV)on16896, seized cashamountofRs. 1,16,51,520/intheformofcurrencynotes. OutoftheseGovt. currencynotes,anamountofRs.3lacs(600currencynotesof Rs.500denominationeach)wasrecoveredinanenvelopalong with a visiting card in the name of aforesaid coaccused/

Contd....

16

Devinder Singh, President PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, which indicated that accused/Sukh Ram obtainedthesaidamountofRs.3LakhsformM/sHTLofhisco accused/DevinderSinghChoudhary,asamotiveorrewardfor theaforesaidfavourshownbyhimtothesaidfirm.

18.Itisfurtherallegedinthechargesheetthataccused/SukhRam while being a public servant in his capacity as MOS(C) in conspiracy withcoaccused/Devinder SinghChoudhary ofM/s HTL,bycorruptorillegalmeansorotherwiseabusinghisofficial positionassuchpublicservant,obtainedpecuniary advantage for himself and / or to M/s HTL of accused/Devinder Singh Chaudhary. Further accused/Sukh Ram in his said capacity/obtainedasumofRs.3Lakhasamotiveorrewardfor showing the favour in the aforesaid manner to M/s HTL of accused/DevinderSinghChaudhary,whichamountwaspaidto

Contd....

17

him by accused/Devinder Singh Chaudhary. On the basis of these facts, IO after obtaining the requisite sanction u/s 197 Cr.PCfiledchargesheet.Cognizancewastakenbythecourt.

19.CopiesofdocumentsasrequiredU/s207Cr.P.Cweresupplied toaccusedand after hearing theparties, Ld.Predecessor, vide orderdated162002framed acharge againstaccusedSukh RamfortheoffencepunishableU/s7and13(1)(d)r/wSection 13(2)ofPCActandachargeU/s12readwithsection7ofPC Act against his coaccused/Devinder Singh Choudhary and furtherachargeU/s120BofIPCr/wSection7,12and13(1)(d) r/w13(2)ofPCActagainstboththeaccused.
20.Itisworthwhiletomentionherethatwhileframingchargevide

order on charge dated 01.06.02, ld.predecessor had observed that investigation carried out by CBI also show that when the

Contd....

18

departmenttookupfurtherpurchaseofPIJFcablesinAprilMay, 1996, it noted that supply performance of HTL upto February, 1996 was only 59.39% and the orders placed on deferred payment basis had not been executed so far, although the agreementsweresignedintheyear1995butHTLhadbacked outfromthecommitmentsmadetodepartmenttosupplycables underdeferredpaymentscheme,therefore,itwasproposedby the department that orders on HTL and two other companies, whosesupplypositionwasnotgood,beplacedonlyaftertimely and successful execution of the existing orders, but accused/Sukh Ram, the then MOS(C), vide his order dated 08.05.96 did not agree with the department and directed immediateplacementofpurchaseorderonHTLforpurchaseof4 LCKM of PIJF Cable without any plausible reason. Thus, the accused was charged not only with respect to allocating 3.5 LCKM of additional PIJF cables vide order dated 03.11.95 but

Contd....

19

alsoforplacingimmediateorderforpurchaseof4LCKMofPIJF cablevideorderdated08.05.96. Boththeaccusedpleadednot guiltyandclaimedtrial.

21.To prove its case prosecution examined 32 witnesses and defence side examined 19 witnesses. After defence evidence wasclosedon14.09.09andthematterwasatthestageoffinal arguments,accused/DSChoudharyexpiredandvideorderdated 08.01.10passedbyld.predecessorofthecourtproceedingsqua accused/DSChoudharystoodabated.

22.I have heard Sh.C S Sharma, Advocate, ld.Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sh Sh.R N Mittal, Sr.Advocate and Sh.PawanNarangld.defencecounselsforaccused/Sukhramand perusedtheevidenceonrecord.

Contd....

20

ISSUEOFSANCTIONU/S197Cr.PCFORPROSECUTIONOF ACCUSED/SUKHRAM:

23.Sinceaccusedhaschallengedthesanctionforhisprosecution accorded by the President of India u/s 197 Cr.PC, therefore, I consideritappropriatetodealwiththevalidityofthesanctionfor hisprosecutionfirst,asithitsthejurisdictionofthecourttotake the cognizance for his trial. The facts, as emerged during investigation,constitutedthecommissionofoffencesofcriminal conspiracy, acceptance of illegal gratification and criminal misconduct by a public servant punishable u/s 120B IPC and Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 by accused/Sukh Ram, therefore, the CBI requested the Central Governmenttoaccordthesanctionu/s197Cr.PCtoprosecute the accused for the said offences vide letter no.781/3/1(a)/96 ACU(V) dated 21.03.1997 from the Director CBI addressed to CabinetSecretary.Afterexaminingthematerial,thePresidentof

Contd....

21

India accorded the sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC for prosecution of accused/Sukh Ramforthe saidoffences. The sanctionorder, Ex.PW26/A was authenticated by Sh.V K Malhotra, the then JointSecretaryintheMinistry ofHomeAffairs,Governmentof India.

24.Toprovethesanction,prosecutionexaminedSh.VKMalhotra (PW26)whohadprocessedthefilerelatingtothesanctionand also authenticated the said sanction order after the Hon'ble PresidentofIndiahadaccordedthesanction.Hehasstatedthat along with the said request for sanction he had received the reportofSP,CBI,calenderofevidenceconsistingofdocuments andstatementofwitnesses. Therequestwasexaminedinthe lightofSP'sreport,evidencemadeavailablebytheCBIandafter discussion of the issue with the concerned department, Law Ministry, etc. and after having considered all the opinions,

Contd....

22

sanctionwasaccordedbyHon'blePresidentofIndia.

25.Theperusalofthesanctionorder,Ex.PW26/Awouldshowthatit isquietadetailedone. Afterdiscussingalltherelevantfactsin detail in the sanction order itself, the Central Government concluded that all the facts mentioned in the sanction order constitutedoffencespunishableu/s120BIPC;Sections13(2)r/w section13(1)(d)andSections7&12ofPCAct,1988.

26.Ld.Special Public Prosecutor has argued that no doubt the sanctionisnecessaryforprosecutionofapublicservantasitisa safeguard against the frivolous and vexatious prosecution of a publicservantfromharassment,butthesanctionshouldnotbe taken as a shield to protect a corrupt and dishonest public servant.Hehassubmittedthatintheinstantcasesanctionorder speaksforitselfandthesatisfactionofthesanctioningauthorityis

Contd....

23

apparentfromreadingthesanctionorder.Hefurthercontended thatwhenthesanctionitselfisexpressive,asinthepresentcase, the argument that particular material was not properly placed beforethesanctioningauthorityforaccordingsanctionorthatthe sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, becomes unsustainable.

27.Theld.counselfortheaccusedhasassailedthesaidsanction orderonsomanygrounds.Hehasarguedthatitwasnotavalid sanction. Hehassubmittedthatwhenthefileofthiscasefor accordingsanctionwassubmittedbeforeHon'blePresident,he refusedtoaccordthesameonthegroundthatintheopinionof the Law Ministry even the essential ingredients of offences, allegedtohavebeencommittedbyaccused/Sukhram,werenot present and that the Hon'ble President did not agree with the opinionofSh.KNBhatt,thethenAdditionalSolicitorGeneralof

Contd....

24

Indiadespitethefactthathisopinionwasavailablebeforehimin thefilewhenthesamewas putuptohimforsanctionbuthe discardedthesaidopinion.

28.Hehasfurthercontendedthatwhenthefilewasresubmittedby theHomeMinistrybeforePresidentforgrantingthesanction,no freshmaterialwascollectedbytheCBIanditwithoutmakingany furtherinvestigation,offeredthecommentsonthesamematerial collectedearlier.Thecommentsdated05.02.98offeredbySh.S KUpadhaya,thethenDIG,CBI,whichweremadethebasisby theHomeMinistryforresubmittingthefiletothePresidentfor accordingthesanction,werenothingbuttherepetitionoftheSP report. The file was not resubmitted to Law Ministry and its opinionwasnottakenagainandassuchtherewasnoapplication ofmindbythesanctioningauthoritywhileaccordingthesanction. Healsoarguedthatfromthesanctionorder,itcannotbeinferred

Contd....

25

thattherecoveryofRs.3lacswastowardstheillegalgratification for the undue favour shown by accused to HTL in matter of allocationof3.5LCKMofthecabletoitandtherebytocause unduepecuniaryadvantagetoit.Hehasalsoarguedthatsince the sanction order does not mention even a word about the secondpartofchargeframedbythecourtagainsttheaccusedin respecttotheallocationof4LCKMofthecabletoHTL,therefore, thecourtwasnotcompetenttoframethechargewithrespectto thisallegation,andconsequentlythetrialasregardsthesecond allegationisvitiated.Tostrengthenhissubmission,hehasrelied uponjudgmentcitedasGokulChandDwarkadasMorarkaVs. TheKing,IndianAppeals,JC1948{(LR)Vol.LXXV}30. He hasalsoallegedthatthesanctionispoliticallymotivated.Healso submitted that because of change in Union Government the President,withoutapplyinghismind,accordedthesanctionwhen thefilewasresubmittedwithoutanyfreshandfurthermaterial.It

Contd....

26

isthussubmittedbyld.defencecounselthatSh.KNBhattwas appointed,AdditionalSolicitorGeneralofIndiaduringthetenure ofSh.AtalBihariVajpaiasPrimeMinister,therefore,theopinion ofthesaidASGdated17.07.97waspoliticallymotivatedandwas obtainedonlyinordertomaliciouslyprosecuteaccused/Sukhram.

29.Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhascounteredallthepointsraised bytheld.counselfortheaccusedandtakenthecourtthroughthe evidenceonrecordtoshowthatthePresidentneverrefusedthe sanctionbuthadonlyaskedtheHomeMinistrytoexamineand meetthepointsraisedbytheLawMinistry.TheHon'blePresident never asked to get the case further investigated and to bring additionalmaterialwhenthefilewastoberesubmittedbefore him for sanction. Ld.Prosecutor has vehemently refuted the allegationthatthesanctionwaspoliticallymotivated. According to him when the proposal was sent for the first time to the

Contd....

27

President, Sh.I K Gujral was the Prime Ministry and Sh.K R NarayananwasthePresidentandthis positiondidnotchange whenthesanctiontoprosecuteaccused/SukhRamwasfinally accordedand,therefore,thereisnojustificationtotheaccusedto assertthatitwaspoliticallymotivated.Asregardstotheframing ofthechargeforallegationofallocationof4LCKMtoHTLand subsequenttrialthereof,forthisallegation,hehassubmittedthat theld.predecessorofthecourthadtakenthecognizanceofthe offencepunishableu/s13(2)r/wSec.13(1)(d)ofthePCAct,1988 inrespecttoallegationofallocationof3.5LCKMofthecableand while examining the case for framing of charges, he found sufficient material for yet another allegation in respect to allocation of 4 LCKM committed in the same transaction. Accordingtold.SpecialPublicProsecutorcognizanceistakenby the court of the offence and not of the accused or allegation. Therefore, according to him, the court was justified and was

Contd....

28

competent to include the said allegation in that charge and subsequenttrialoftheaccusedonthesaidallegationwasvalid. Tobuttresshisargumenthehasrelieduponarecentjudgmentof theHon'bleSupremeCourttitledasKuldeepSharmaVs.State ofHP,2011IIIAD(CRI)(SC)9para11.

30.The contention of the ld.counsel of the accused is that the Hon'ble President, in view of the opinion of the Law Ministry, refusedtoaccordthesanctionwhenthecaseforsanctionwas putbeforehimforthefirsttime.

31.To buttress his arguments, he has also relied upon judgment citedasStateofHPVs.NishantSarin,Crl.AppealNo.2353of 2010 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.12.2010, whereinitwaslaiddownbyHon'bleSupremeCourtthatifthe sanctioning authority has once refused to sanction the

Contd....

29

prosecution of accused, it can not subsequently change its opinionandordersanctiontoprosecutetheaccusedonthesame material.

32.To appreciate this point properly, it would be necessary to examinetheremarksmadebytheHon'blePresidentonthefile whenhereturneditformeetingoutthepointsraisedbytheLaw Ministry. The defence, in order to prove that the Hon'ble Presidenthadrefusedthesanction,gotthesaidfilesummoned from the Ministry and examined Sh.Neeraj Kansal, Director, Central State Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (DW19).TheremarksmadebythePresidentwhenthefilewas submittedbeforehim(pageno.4ofexaminationinchiefofDW19 dated31.03.09)arereproducedbelow;

IhaveexaminedthepapersintheMinistryofHome Affairs,FileNo.10/6/97MNGinrelationtotheproposed sanction for the prosecution of Sh.Sukh Ram, former


Contd....

30

Minister of State for Communication. I find that the DepartmentofLegalAffairsintheMinistryofLawand Justicehadinitsearlierobservation,entertainedstrong andemphaticallywordedreservationsinthematter.It had even gone to the extent of observing ...... the materialasbroughtoutinthereferringnotefallsshort ofessentialingredientsoftheoffenceallegedtohave beencommittedbySh.SukhRam,andassuch,there doesnotappeartobeaprimafaciecaseforgrantof thesanctionforprosecutionofSh.SukhRam. Thereisnothingonthefiletoshowthatthereservation expressed by the Department of Legal Affairs in the earlierstageofitsexaminationofthecasehavebeen addressed. Beforeacaseforsanctionispresented, it would be necessary that all those observations are thoroughly addressed even though it may not be necessarytogointominuteofevidence. Thecasemay beexaminedinthelightoftheabove andpaperresubmitted. (Emphasissupplied)

Sd/ (PresidentofIndia) 24.12.1997

33.Onthebasisoftheaboveremark,theld.counselfortheaccused hasconcludedthattheHon'blePresidenthadrefusedtoaccord thesanction.Iamafraidthatthisconclusioncannotbedrawnby


Contd....

31

any stretch of imagination. If the sanctioning authority had refusedtoaccordthesanction,hewouldhaverejectedoutrightly theproposalofsanction.Ithadnoreasontowritethatthecase beexaminedinthelightoftheaforesaidremarksand paperbe resubmitted(emphasissupplied).Whatthesanctioningauthority wantedwasthattheobjectionsraisedbytheLawMinistryshould beaddressedtoi.eshouldbeexplainedforthematerialcollected duringtheinvestigationandthattoowithoutgoingintotheminute oftheevidence.

34.Itwouldnotbeoutoftheplacetomentionthat onthesame materialwhichwasplacedbeforethesanctioningauthority,this courtfoundthataprimafaciecaseismadeoutfortheoffences punishable u/s 120B IPC under sections 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and that order has become final. Therefore,whenthefilewasresubmittedbytheHomeMinistry,

Contd....

32

aftermeetingouttheobjectionsraisedbytheLawMinistry,then only the Hon'ble President had accorded the sanction for prosecutionofaccused/SukhRam. Here,itwouldnotbeoutof contexttosaythatevenHon'blePresidentdidnotagreewiththe opinionoftheLawMinistry.Hadheagreedwiththesaidopinion oftheLawMinistry,hewouldhaverejectedtheproposalthenand there. Inthatsituation,hehadnojustificationtoasktheHome Ministry to resubmit the file after meeting out the objections raisedbytheLawMinistry. Itmaybementionedthatfromthe statement of Sh.V K Malhotra (PW26) and Sh.Neeraj Kansal (DW19),itisquietclearthatthesanctionwasneverrefusedby theHon'blePresident,atanystage.Itmaybeinferredfromthe aforesaid note that the sanctioning authority simply wanted certaindoubts,createdbytheJointSecretaryoftheLawMinistry, removed.

Contd....

33

35.Nextpointraisedbytheld.counelfordefenceisthattheHome MinistrywithoutanyfreshmaterialorfurtherinvestigationbyCBI resubmittedthefilebeforethesanctioningauthority.TheHome Ministry, after the receipt of the aforesaid remarks by the President, sent the letter Ex.PW26/DA=Ex.PW26/DAA along with the said comments offered by the Law Ministry, Ex.PW26/DB and the opinion of Sh.K N Bhatt, the then Additional Solicitor General of India, Mark 'X' (true copy is compared from original during crossexamination of PW26 on 27.07.07)andaskedforitscomments. Sh.SKUpadhaya,the then DIG, CBI offered parawise comments vide his note, Ex.PW26/DC=Mark'C' and met all the objections of the Law Ministry.Iamnotabletofathomastohowtheld.counselforthe accused gathered the impression that the file was to be re submitted to the President only after the fresh material had emerged.Onthecontrary,fromtheaforesaidremarks,itisquiet

Contd....

34

apparentthathewantedthefiletoberesubmittedaftermeeting out the objection raised by the Ministry. He, vide his said remarks,hadmadeitclearthatitmaynotbenecessarytogointo minutesoftheevidence.Thismakesitabundantlyclearthathe soughttheclarificationontheexistingevidence.

36.Ithasalsobeenarguedbytheld.defencecounselthattheHome Ministry,afterthereceiptofcommentsfromCBIandbeforere submittingthefiletotheHon'blePresident,didnotsendthefileto Law Ministry again for its further opinion and the sanctioning authoritywithoutapplyingitsmindaccordedthesanction. This argumentishavingnoforce.Nowhere,thesanctioningauthority had directed the Home Ministry that the file be resubmitted beforehimonlyafterhavinggotexaminedfromtheLawMinistry. Evenotherwise,fromperusalofevidenceonrecord,ittranspired thatthismatterwasexaminedatthelevelofMinisterofStatein

Contd....

35

the Law Ministry, who was in agreement with the opinion of AdditionalSolicitorGeneral.Sh.NeerajKansal,Director,Central State Division, Ministry of Home Affairs (DW19) in his cross examination has proved the note sheet of the said file from 18.02.98 to 27.03.98 (Ex.DW19/P1). On page 46 of the said notesheetthereisanotedated24.02.98recordedbySh.RD Kapur,AdditionalSecretary(Home).Inthesaidnotehehasvery specifically mentioned that The Minister of State for Law & JusticeisinagreementwiththeopinionoftheAdditionalSolicitor General.ThisstatementoftheAdditionalSecretaryinhisabove saidnotemakesitabundantlyclearthatafterreturnofthefileby thePresident,theHomeMinistryhadconsultedtheLawMinistry before resubmitting the case to the Hon'ble President for accordingsanctionu/s197Cr.PC.Therefore,thesaidcontention of the ld.defence counsel, even assuming for the sake of argumentthattheHomeMinistryshouldhaveconsultedtheLaw

Contd....

36

MinistrybeforeresubmissionofthefiletotheHon'blePresident, becomesredundant.

37.It has been further contended that the sanction to prosecute accused/SukhRamwaspoliticallymotivated,therefore,therewas noapplicationofmind.Sh.VKMalhotra(PW26)whoprocessed andauthenticatedthesanctionorderwascrossexaminedinthat direction. It was suggested to this witness that the opinion of Sh.K N Bhatt was politically motivated and was obtained to malign and maliciously prosecute accused/Sukh Ram. This argument appears to be imaginary and away from the facts provedonrecord. Sh.NeerajKansal(DW19)duringhiscross examinationbyld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasstatedthatSh.I KGujralwasthePrimeMinisterandSh.KRNarayananwasthe President when the proposal was sent for the first time to the President to accord the sanction and that this position did not

Contd....

37

changewhenthesanctionwasfinallyaccorded. Moreover,the accusedinhisstatementu/s313Cr.PCnowherehasstatedthat thesanctionwaspoliticallymotivated.

38.The last point that was contended by the ld.counsel for the accusedisthatthesanctionwasnotaccordedwithrespecttothe allegationofundueallocationof4LCKMtoHTLbyaccused/Sukh Ramtocauseunduepecuniaryadvantagetoitand,therefore,the courtwasnotcompetenttoframethechargeandtrytheaccused for this allegation. According to him the trial in respect to tis allegation was without jurisdiction. For this purpose, he has heavilyrelieduponjudgmentofPrivyCounselin GokulChand DwarkadasMorarkaVs.TheKing,IndianAppeals,JC1948 {(LR)Vol.LXXV}30. Butcarefulperusalofthesaidjudgment leads to a conclusion that this authority helps the prosecution rather then helping the accused in any manner. The Hon'ble

Contd....

38

Courthadobservedthegivingofsanctionconfersjurisdictionon the court to try the case and the judge or magistrate having jurisdictionmusttrythecaseintheordinarywayundertheCode of Criminal Procedure. The charge need not follow the exact terms of the sanction, though it must not relate to an offence essentiallydifferentfromthattowhichthesanctionrelates.

39.Toappreciatethepointitwouldbenecessarytohavealookof Section 197 Cr.PC, 1973. It provides that no court shall take cognizanceofanoffencewithoutthesanctionoftheGovernment. Thecourttakesthecognizanceofanoffenceandnotofoffender ortheallegation. Ifthesanctioningauthorityhasaccordedthe sanctioninrespectanoffence,andifinthesametransactionof that offence for which the sanction has been accorded, some other facts also emerge which make out the same offence, in suchasituation,inmyopinion,itwouldnotbepossibleforthe

Contd....

39

courttoignorethatallegation. Thecourtwouldbejustifiedand competenttoframethechargeandtrythatallegation. Further wheresanctionhasbeenaccordedfortheoffenceofconspiracy andthereisnodirectevidenceforthecommissionofoffenceof conspiracyandthecommissionofthisoffenceistobeinferred from the attending facts and circumstances including the acts amounting to commission of the offence committed by the accused persons, it would cover all the acts which were committed in the same transaction. In the instant case the sanctioning authority accorded the sanction for the offence of conspiracypunishableu/s120BIPC,therefore,thiscourtwas havingthejurisdictiontoframethechargeandtrytheaccusedfor theallegationofallocationof4LCKMtoHTLasthisallegationis apartofthesametransactionanddoesnotrelatetoanoffence essentiallydifferentfromthattowhichthesanctionrelates.

Contd....

40

40.This issue can be viewed from a different angle also. The generallawisthatthecourtiscompetenttotakethecognizance ofanyoffence.Section197Cr.PC,whichprovidesforsanction fromthecompetentauthoritywithoutwhichthecourtcannottake cognizance of an offence against the public servant, is an exceptiontothisgeneralrule.Therefore,itisnecessarytokeep inmindtheobjectofsanction.Theobjectofsanctionhasbeento provide the protection to the public servant from frivolous and vexatiousprosecution.Oncethisaspecthasbeengonethrough by the sanctioning authority whohas accorded the sanctionto prosecutethepublicservant,itwouldmeanthattheprosecution againstthepublicservantisnotfrivolousandvexatious. Inthis contextitwouldbeappropriatetoquotetheobservationmadeby theHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseCSKrishanamurthyVs. StateofKarnataka,reportedasII(2005)CCR35(SC): Itisnodoubttruethatthesanctionisnecessaryfor everyprosecutionofpublicservant,thissafeguardis
Contd....

41

against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But the sanction should not be taken as shield to protect the corrupt and dishonestpublicservant.

41.Similarproblemarosebefore theHon'bleSupremeCourtina recentcasetitledasKuldeepSharmaVs.StateofHPandAnr., reportedas2011IIIAD(CRI)(SC)9.Inthiscasetheaccused personswhowerepostedasAsstt.EngineerandJuniorEngineer in the Irrigation and Health Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh were prosecuted and convicted for the offencespunishableundersections467,468,471,420&120B IPCandalsoforoffenceundersection5(2)ofthePCActonthe allegation that the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and prepared false muster roll nos.146 and 230 in whichnamesofcasuallabourers,whowerenotengaged,were inserted.Sanctionforprosecutionoftheaccusedwasaccorded fortheoffencespunishableundersections409,465,467,468,
Contd....

42

471,201,511and120BofIPCasalsoforoffenceundersection 5(2)ofthePCActforpreparingfalsemusterrollno.146only.On those facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not quash the convictionoftheappellantinrelationtomusterrollno.230.The relevantparagraphisextractedfromthesaidjudgmentandisre producedasunder: Mr.Panda, then submits that the State Government whilegrantingsanctionhastakenintoaccounttheentry offictitiousnamesofcasuallabourersinmusterroleno. 146butthechargewasframedinrespectofmusterroll no.230and,therefore,theconvictionoftheappellantis vitiatedonthisgroundalone. The submissionsneed notdetainassuch.Asstatedearlier,theappellanthas beenconvictedforhisroleinrelationtomusterrollnos. 146 and 230. Admittedly, while sanctioning prosecution,theroleofappellantinrelationtomuster roll no.146 has been adverted to. Therefore, his conviction can not be held to be illegal only for the reasonthatnoreferencewasmadetomusterrollno. 230inthesanctionorder.(Para11)

42.Inviewofabovediscussion,itwouldbeafutileefforttodwellon thispointanyfurther.Toconclude,thesanctionorder,evidence

Contd....

43

ofS/Sh.VKMalhotraandNeerajKansalandthedocumentsgot provedbytheprosecutionanddefenceshowthatthesanction wasaccordedbytheHon'blePresidentafterapplyinghismind andnofaultcanbefoundwithit.

IMPLICATIONS OF ORDER DATED 16.07.1993 (Ex.PW10/D10)PASSEDBYACCUSED/SUKHRAMTOPUT UP EVERY CASE TO HIM BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF PURCHASEORDER. 43.Beforediscussingtheallegationsofacceptingorobtainingthe gratificationotherthanlegalremunerationamountingtoRs.3lacs by accused/Sukh Ram from his coaccused/D S Choudhary (sincedeceased)andabusinghispositionaspublicservantby allocating additional quantity of 3.5 LCKM PIJF Cables and directingtheimmediateplacementofpurchaseorderof4LCKM PIJF Cables on HTL to cause pecuniary advantage to his co accused, it would be desirable and appropriate to discuss the implications of the order dated 16.07.1993, Ex.PW10/D10
Contd....

44

(D53) passed by accused/Sukh Ram as Minister of State (Communication).Accused/SukhRamfunctionedasMinisterof State(Communication)withindependentchargefrom18.01.93to 16.05.96.He,inthatcapacity,passedtheaforesaidorderdated 16.07.93thatbeforetheissueofpurchaseorder,everycasebe puttohim.Therelevantportionofthesaidorderisextractedand isreproducedhereunder: After the finalization of every tender and before the issueofpurchaseorders,everycasemaybeputupto mewithanotefromtheChairman(TC)givingsummary ofthehistoryofthecaseandexplainingthedelaysin timetakenforfinalizationofthattender.

44.Theld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhassubmittedthatrealpurpose of this order dated 16.07.93 was to create an opportunity to indulge into malpractice which shows the propensity of accused/Sukh Ram towards commission of such offences covered under PC Act. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the accusedhascontendedthatthisorderisaninnocuousorderand
Contd....

45

no oblique motive can be attributed to the accused when he passedthisorder.Accordingtohimthisorder(Ex.PW10/D10) showstheanxietyoftheaccusedaboutthedifficultiesfacedby thefieldstaffduetothedelayedsuppliesoftheequipmentsand thatthecontentsofthisorderdoesnotmakeoutcommissionof anyoffencebytheaccused.Accordingtohim,thisorderwasa policydecisionwhichtheaccused,asaMinister,wascompetent topass.Hehasfurthercontendedthataccusedwasnottheonly Ministerwhopassedsuchanorderandthatevenpriortothis,his predecessorshadalsopassedsuchorders.Inordertobuttress hiscontentionhehasrelieduponAnnexure11.1atpage55ofthe Telecom Commission Manual, Ex.PW1/D1 (D43) wherein an earlier Minister of State (Communication) laid down certain guidelines which were to be followed in connection with the distributionofthequantityofthestockstobepurchasedthrough thetenders.

Contd....

46

45.Thecontentionoftheld.defencecounselisnotatalltenable.At firstglancetheorderdated16.07.93(Ex.PW10/D10)appearsto be innocuous and one can gather an impression that it was passedtobringefficiency intheworkingofdepartmentandto redressthegrievancesoffieldofficerswhohadbeencomplaining aboutthedelayinthesupplyofequipmentsandmaterialswhich hampered the development of Telecom facilities. In his (accused's)view theimportantparameterwhichusedtocause the said situation was the abnormal delays in finalizing the tendersatheadquarters. Butperusalofthesubsequentevents andthestatementofwitnessSh.RKTakker(PW2)wouldfalsify thecontentionofthedefence.Theexpeditiousfinalizationofthe tenderwasonlyapretextasthesamedelayinfinalizationofthe tenderscontinuedeventhereafter. Ittranspiresthatbypassing thisorder,accused/SukhRamcreatedanopportunitytoindulge

Contd....

47

in corruption and to extend undue favour to the parties with oblique motive. In the case at hand, as is apparent from the NoticeInvitingTender(hereinaftermentionedasNIT)Ex.PW1/1 (page124/CinD5)andthestatementofPW1/Sh.OmParkash Bibra,theNITforprocurementof352LCKMofPIJFCablesfor twoyearsi.e.199596and199697wasissuedon30.11.94butit wasnotfinalizedevenuptoOctober1995asisclearfromthe notings dated 30.09.95 (Ex.PW2/8) and 03.11.95 (Ex.PW2/9) andtheLettersofIntentwereissuedbythedepartmentonlyon 10.11.95 for the supply of cables against this tender. The accuseddidnotenquireorgotenquiredintothecausesforsuch an inordinate delay in finalization of the tender and as to the officerswhowereresponsibleforit. Failureonhisparttotake noticeofthisdelayleadstoirresistibleconclusionthatthesaid order, Ex.PW10/D10 was not passed by him to streamline working of the department for expeditious finalization of the

Contd....

48

tenderbutitwaspassedwithanobliquemotivetocauseundue favourbyabusinghispositionaspublicservanttherebycausing unduepecuniaryadvantagetohimselfand/ortootherpersons. Moreover,thejobofaMinisterwastoformulatethepoliciesfor efficientworkingsandnottoindulgeinsuchmattersasputtingup everypurchaseordertohimbeforeitwasissued.Inthisregard thestatementofSh.RKTakkar,thethenChairmanofTelecom Commission (PW2) is material. The relevant portion of the statementofsh.RKTakkar(PW2)isreproducedhereunderfor betterappreciationofthisissue: ItiscorrectthatMOS(C)isabovetheCommission.Itis correctthattheMinisterhadthepowertotakedecision undertheTransactionofBusinessRules,1961. Que.Is it correct that as per Government of India (TransactionofBusiness)Rules,1961,theMinisterwas fully competent to take decision as far as Ministry was concernedanditistobetreatedasdecisionofCabinet. Ans.The Executive Order by the Government of India settingupTelecomCommissiondidnotenvisageanyrole forMOS(C)inthepurchaseofstores,etc. WhenSukh
Contd....

49

RamjoinedasMOS(C)heissuedanorderthatsupply ordersshouldbeplacedwithhispriorapproval. Strictly speaking, the order passed by him was contrary to the order issued by the Government of India in respect of Telecom Commission. Department of Telecommunication was organized in a different manner than other departments when Telecom Commission was set up, its relationship visavis theMinisterweredefinedintheorderwherebyitwas setupandtheroleoftheMinisterwasconfinedtolay down policies and issuing directions on policies. (emphasissupplied)(Pages11&12ofcross examinationofPW2dated01.07.02beforelunchbreak).

46.Thisanswerwasgivenbythewitnessinhiscrossexamination and this fact was not refuted by the accused by putting any suggestiontothewitnesstothecontrary. Itisnoteworthythat thisdocument,Ex.PW10/D10wasgotprovedbythedefencein the crossexamination, therefore, the accused can not escape fromitsensuingconsequences. ALLEGATIONRELATINGTOTHEALLOCATIONOF3.5LCKM BYTHEACCUSEDTOM/sHARYANATELECOMLIMITED 47.Asperprosecutioncasetheaccused/Sukhramisallegedtohas
Contd....

50

committed the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 in respect to Tender No. 1421/94MMT(MMS) dated 30.11.1994. The relevant orders passedbyaccused/SukhRamwhichmakeoutthecommissionof thesaidoffencesaredated30.09.95and03.11.95. Itwouldbe propertomentiontherelevantfactswhichwouldfacilitateusto understandtheimplicationandintricaciesinthecasewhichwould crop up from time to time while analyzing the facts and appreciatingtheevidencewhichhasemergedduringthetrialof thecase.

48.The Department of Telecommunications of Ministry of Communication, Government of India floated the tender vide TenderEnquiryNo.1421/94MMT(MMS)dated30.11.94forthe procurementof352LCKMofPIJFCablesforMTNLandDOTfor theyears199596and199697.Initiallythedateofreceiptofthe

Contd....

51

tenders and their opening date was fixed as 19.01.95 but the samewasextendedto24.01.1995.

49.The procedure for theprocurement of the cables was thaton receiptrequirementsofcablesfromdifferentcirclesofDOT,aNIT usedtobeprepared,issuedandpublishedinthenewspapers.In responsetosame,thetenderbidswererequiredtobesubmitted withinthestipulatedperiodoftimeasgiveninNIT.Acommittee used to be constituted by the department to open the bids received in response to NIT and the bids were opened in the presenceofallthemembersoftheCommitteeaswellasinthe presenceofallthebidders(Ex.PW1/1NITatpages176/Cand 177/C of D5, PW1 and PW5, pages 1 of examinationin chief).

50.AccordinglyaBidOpeningCommitteecomprisingof1.Sh.A K

Contd....

52

Jedhke,ADG(ST)(PW5);2.Sh.OPBibra,ADG(MMY)(PW1) and 3.Sh.Vijay Rajpal, AD (MMY) was constituted (PW5/A K Jedhke page 1 of examinationin chief and Ex.PW1/3 Bid OpeningMinutesplacedatpage10/CofD5).

51.InresponsetotheaboveNITasmanyas27bidswerereceived from different parties which also included the bid from M/s HaryanaTelecomLtd.(HTL).Outofthese27bids,only18bids wereconsideredeligibleandtheremaining9bidswerenottaken intoconsiderationforvariousreasonswhichhavebeenassigned intheBidOpeningMinutes. BidOpeningMinutes,Ex.PW1/2 waspreparedbytheBidOpeningCommitteeandthesamewas signed by all the members of the committee. Copy of Bid OpeningMinuteswassenttoTenderEvaluationCommitteealong withthebidsof18partiesincludingthebidofHTL{PW1and PW5,page1ofexaminationinchiefofboththewitnesses

Contd....

53

andEx.PW1/2(listofbidsatpage10/Cto12/CofD5)and Ex.PW1/3 (Bid Opening Minutes at page 10/C to 13/C of D5)}.

52.A Tender Evaluation Committee (in short TEC) comprising of 1.Sh.DBSehgal,Advisor(P)asChairman;2.Smt.ShaukatAra Tirmizi, DDG (PF) and 3.Sh.Arun Kumar, DDG (MMII) as memberswasconstitutedwiththeapprovalofMember(F)and Member(P). Thesebidsofeighteenpartieswereexaminedby thesaidcommittee. Itsubmitteditsreport,Ex.PW2/D6which wassignedbyallthemembers(PW5andPW6andEx.2/D6 TenderEvaluationCommitteeReportplacedatpagesfrom 1/Cto9/CofD5).

53.TECheldanumberofmeetings.TECwhileevaluatingthebids consideredthecommercialaspect,pricing,budgetaryprovisions

Contd....

54

and requirement of the department (Ms.Shaukat Ara Trimizi, PW6). It first examined the rates which were inclusive of all taxes and levies. Thereafter, they calculated bidding of the vendorsasL.1,L.2andonwards.L.1wasconsideredaslowest tendererandasperthetermsandconditionsofthetender20%to 50%ofthequantitywastobeallocatedtothelowestbidder. If theallocation,afterapplyingthiscriteria,exceededtheinstalled capacityofthevendorasdeterminedbytheTelecomEngineering Center,theTECrestrictedallocationtothevendortoitsinstalled capacity. However, since vendor may not be in a position to supplythecablesasperitsinstalledcapacity,theperformanceof thevendorduringlastsixmonthswasseen.Inordertoarriveat its annual capacity, the TEC doubled the figures which were worked out on the basis of six months performance. In case installed capacity of the firm exceeded its performance, it was restrictedtotheperformanceofthefirm.

Contd....

55

54.The TEC after applying the said guidelines, gave its recommendation to the competent authority regarding the quantities to be allocated to various bidders (Pages 1 & 2 of examinationinchiefofPW10).TheTECReport,Ex.PW2/D6 alsomentionsindetailtheguidingfactorswhichwerekeptinits mindbytheTECmemberswhilerecommendingtheallocationof cablestoeachvendor.Thesamehavebeenmentionedinpara5 underthecaption'AllocationofQuantities.'Therelevantportionis reproducedbelow: 5.3FinalAllocation: (ii)Asperpara5ofSectionIVofthebiddocument,order for20%50%ofthetenderedquantitymaybeplacedon thetechnicallyandcommerciallyresponsivebidderwhose price is determined as the lowest but subject to the manufacturingcapacity as ascertainedbythepurchase. The manufacturing capacity of the various bidders as ascertainedbytheTelecomEngineeringCenterisgivenin
Contd....

56

AnnexureVI.However,itisseenthatinthepastsomeof themanufacturershavenotbeenabletosupplythefull quantity ordered on them even though their rated manufacturing capacity was higher. The TEC is, therefore,oftheopinionthatfordeterminingtherealistic manufacturing capacity of each bidder, twice its best performanceduringthelast6monthsperiod(i.e.October, 1994 to March, 1995) may be taken into consideration.(Ex.PW2/D6,Page5/CofD5).

55.Thetenderasstatedabovewasfloatedfor352LCKM,however, while deciphering the sizewise quantities of different size of cablesinKMsasapprovedandincludedinthebiddocument,the total LCKM was worked out to 359.29 LCKM. The TEC recommended the allocation of 178.93 LCKM for the year 199596and179.05for199697tothebidderswhosebidswere forwardedtoit.

Contd....

57

56.Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines and on the basis of rates quoted by HTL, the TEC worked out allocation of 35.93 LCKMcablesfortwoyearsi.e.199596and199697toit,butthe supplypositionofthisfirmwasfoundtobeverypoorduringthe year199495(asisapparentfromAnnexureXoftheTECreport whichisEx.PW10/1(placedatpage34/Cof D5). Thesaid Annexure X to the report shows that HTL had supplied 4.82 LCKMduringtheperiodOctober,1994toMarch,1995andinthe whole year i.e. 199495, total supplies were only 6.81 LCKM although installed capacity of HTL, on the date of opening of tenderi.e.on24.01.95was 14LCKMandatthe timeof TEC report it was 24 LCKM. Therefore, TEC, based upon the aforesaidformula,workedoutatotalquantityof9.64LCKMtobe allocatedtoHTLforsupplyfortheyear199596. Acomplete detaileddistributionofthecableforallthevendorsfortheyear 199596 and 199697 has been given in Annexure XIII

Contd....

58

(Ex.PW2/D7atpage76/CofD5)oftheTECReport.Finally, theTECinitsreport,Ex.PW2/D6(placedatpage8/CofD5) recommendedtheallocationof9.64LCKMfortheyear199596 and17.96LCKMfortheyear199697toHTL.

57.Atthisstage,itwouldbepertinenttodiscussthemanufacturing capacityofHTLasitishavingitsrelevanceinsubstantiatingthe first allegation of abusing the power by accused/Sukh Ramas publicservantincausingunduepecuniaryadvantagetoHTLby allocatinganadditionalquantityof3.5LCKMcablestoit. Itis evidentfromAnnexureVIdated06.03.95,Ex.PW2/D5(placed at page 25/C of D5) of the TEC Report which mentions the production/manufacturingcapacityofPIJFCablesmanufacturers. ThemanufacturingcapacityofHTLwas14LCKMonthedateof openingoftenderbutitwasincreasedto24LCKMinviewofthe letterdated01.06.95(Ex.PW28/D2atpage26/CofD20)from

Contd....

59

TelecommunicationEngineeringCentertoM/sHTLinresponse totheletterdated25.04.95ofthefirm. Therelevantportionof thesaidletterdated01.06.95isreproducedbelow:

With the addition of these machines the manufacturing capacity of M/s Haryana Telecom Limited, Rohtak is considered adequate to manufacture 24 LCKM of PIJF Cablesperannum.

58.Thus, thecapacity of M/s HTL tomanufacture on thedate of openingofthetenderi.eon24.01.95wasonly14LCKMandits capacitytomanufactureincreasedto24LCKMfrom01.06.95.

59.The report submitted by the TEC was processed in file no. 20360/94/MMS(Ex.PW5/1).Sincetheacceptanceofthereport would have taken considerable time, therefore, adhoc procurementof58.56LCKMcableswasauthorizedtoTelecom circlesandMTNLagainstcash. Thereafter,thereremainedthe
Contd....

60

balance of 120.37 LCKM (178.93 LCKM as recommended by TECfor19959658.56LCKM)tobepurchasedoncash.Since MTNL had purchased 0.18 LCKM less than its authorized quantity, therefore, the total requirement for purchase in cash camedownto120.19LCKM.

60.Itmaybementionedherethatthepurchaseofquantityof359.29 LCKMagainstthesaidtender,asrecommendedbyTECforthe years 199596 and 199697 was approved by Member (F), Member (P) and Chairman Telecom Commission vide their noting,Ex.PW2/D3,PW13/3andPW2/2respectively(placed atD5atpages7/Nand10/N).Sh.Joseph,Member(Finance)in hissaidnote,Ex.PW2/D3(page7/NofD5)hascategorically mentionedthatrecommendationmadebyTECfortwoyearswas approved.Itreadsasfollows:

Contd....

61

Prices and supplier wise allocation (for two years) as recommendedbyTECapproved.Quantitytobeprocured in199596asproposedatP.6ante.

61.The Member (P) and Chairman of Telecom Commission concurredwiththisapprovalvidesaidEx.PW13/3andPW2/2. Further,thenotedated19.09.95(Ex.PW13/D6placedatpage 11/NofD5)recordedbySh.RPHansalsoshowsthattheaction forprocurementofonly178.93LCKMfortheyear199596,as recommendedbyTECandapprovedbyMember(P),Member(F) andChairmanTelecomCommissionwasinitiatedandprocessed. Thesaidnoteisalsoreproducedbelow:

ThecasewasdiscussedintheTCMeetingon15.09.95 pendingdecisionregardingutilizationofadditionalfunds likely to be available on account of license fee from cellular/basic services by private operators, we may take action for procurement of 178.93 LCKM of PIJF cablesincashasapprovedonP/P(5N9N).Pleaseputup with supplierwisecirclewise details proposed for placementofPOs.
Contd....

62

62.Accordingly,achartmentioningtheproposedsupplierwiseand circlewise allocation for the total of 178.93 LCKM cables was prepared. Thisallocationincludedthequantityof54.74LCKM which,onbeingauthorizedbytheTelecomCommunication,was purchasedfromthesesuppliersbydifferentTelecomCircleson adhocbasisagainstcash.ThechartEx.PW14/6wasplacedin thefileEx.PW5/1(D5atpage161/C). Sh.RPHans,videhis notedated26.09.95,Ex.PW2/D4(inD5atpage13/N)placed the proposal before MOS (C) (the accused) for approval of allocation of the aforesaid quantity i.e. 178.93 LCKM to the suppliersasapprovedbytheTECanddifferentTelecomCircles.

63.The accused was not satisfied withthe aforesaid proposal for allocationof178.93LCKMofthecablesfortheyear199596to thosesuppliersastheircapacityandperformancewasnottaken

Contd....

63

into account. He returned the file without approval with a directiontoputupthefileafterworkingouttheallocationtothe suppliersaccordingtotheparametersdetailedbyhiminhisnote dated30.09.95,Ex.PW2/8(D5placedatpage14/N). Since this order is one of the aforesaid two orders passed by the accusedwhichfacilitatedhiminallegedcommissionofoffence, therefore,itisbeingreproducedhereunder:

From the perusal of the preceding notes, it has been observedthattheallocationof178.93LCKMfortheyear 199596has beenproposedwithouttakingintoaccount thecapacityandperformanceofthemanufacturers. Barely six months are left now for the supplies to be effectedwithinthecurrentfinancialyearsoastofulfillthis year'stargets,butordersproposedonsomefirmsarefar in excess of their capacity for six months. Further, suppliesarealsolikelytobependingwiththefirmsfrom earlier orders placed in this year. The allocation, therefore,hastobeworkedouttakingintoaccountfirm wisecapacityasondateofopeningofthetender,supply record against last year's allocation, supplies made till date against orders on deferred payment and adhoc orders placed earlier this year and benefits of tax
Contd....

64

concession,ifany,whichislikelytoresultinsavingsfor DOT. TheperformanceofHCLasperstatementplacedonthe filehasnotbeensatisfactory.Sotheymaybegiventhe quantityasproposedbyTEC. Thecasemaypleasebe putuptomewithinaweekafterworkingoutfirmwisere distribution,takingintoaccounttheabovefacts. Signature (Sukhram) 30/9 (emphasissupplied)

64.It would be pertinent to mention here that coaccused/D S ChoudharyhadassumedthechargeasChairmanofHTLfrom September, 1995 as is shown by document no.45 (admitted document) which is a certified copy of the resolution dated 05.09.95 passed by Board of Directors of M/s HTL. By this resolution,accused/DSChoudharywaselectedasChairmanof M/sHTL.Ithasbeensubmittedbyld.SpecialPublicProsecutor thatduetoproximityofaccused/SukhRamwithcoaccused/DS Choudhary, who had by then become Chairman of HTL,

Contd....

65

accused/SukhRamstartedgivingunduedividendsinthematter ofallocationofcablestoM/sHTL.

65.Incompliancetotheaboveorderdated30.09.95,thedepartment workedouttheredistributiontoeachvendorinaccordancewith theparametersgivenbytheaccused. Forredistributionofthe saidquantity,adetailedchart,Ex.PW5/6(atpage194/CofD5) wasprepared.Followingarethecolumnsofthechart:

(1)Sl.No. (2) Name of the vendor (3) Quantity ordered (LCKM) in 199495 (4) Quantity supplied (LCKM) in 199495 (5) % of supply (6) Backlog from 9495 (7) Quantityordered(LCKM)during199596underdeferred payment (8) Quantity ordered (LCKM) during 199596 againstcashpayment(9)Totalquantityordered(6+7+8) (10)QuantitysuppliedfromApriltoSeptember,1995(11) %ofthequantityordered(12)Balancequantity(910)(13) Installedcapacityfor12monthsatthetimeofopeningof tender(14)Installedcapacityfor6monthsatthetimeof openingoftender(15)Allocationasperrecommendation ofTECforbalancequantityof120.19LCKM(16)Overflow i.e(12+15)(14),(17)Distributionofoverflow(18)Revised allocationafterdistributionofoverflow.
Contd....

66

66.ThepositionofM/sHTLisgivenbelow:
1 13 2 3 4 5(%) 6 7 8 9 10
11(%) 12

13 14

15

16

17

18

HTL 9.68

7.11 73.45 2.57 2.37 2.22 7.16 3.67 51.26 3.49 14 7.00 7.42 3.91 0.00 3.51

67.Thischart,Ex.PW5/6was placedinthefilewhichisatpage 194/CofD5.

68.Sh.NarendraKumar(PW14)whilegivingoutthedetailsasto howtheredistributionhadbeenworkedout,recordedthenote dated18.10.95,Ex.PW2/D1(Page15/Nand16/NofD5). In this note Sh.Narendra Kumar had pointed out that the supply position of M/s HTL and M/s HCL remained precarious. Therefore,itwasproposednottoawardanyoverflowonthem. ThechartandthisproposalinfileEx.PW5/1(D5)wassubmitted totheaccused/SukhRamforapproval.

Contd....

67

69.TheaccusedasMinisterofCommunicationvidehisorderdated 03.11.95,Ex.PW2/9(placedatpage17/NofD5)approvedthis proposal which was put up to him but he increased the total quantityof120.19LCKMby10%to132.19LCKM. Thereason givenbytheaccusedforthisincreasewasthatwiththatcriteria certain vendors have been adversely affected. Therefore, he passedtheorderthattheincreasedquantityof12LCKMmay,in viewoftheirperformanceandeffectivedistributionofoverflow,be distributedamongstfivevendorsviz.M/sTCL,M/sFINOLEX,M/s RPG, M/s UBL and M/s HTL. The Minister (accused) by this ordergave3.5LCKMtoM/sHTL,outofthisincreasedquantity. Sincetheprosecutionhasallegedthattherewasnojustification totheaccusedfortheallocationofextraquantityof3.5LCKMto M/sHTLespeciallywhenitssupplypositionwasprecariousandit wasnotfulfillingitspreviouscommitmentsandthisallocationof theextraquantitywastocausepecuniaryadvantagetohisco

Contd....

68

accused and/or to himself by abusing his official position as a publicservant,therefore,thesaidorderisreproduced,asunder:

It has been observed that SIIL has been proposed allocation of 11.28 LCKM in the distribution of the total overflowof15.85LCKM. Withaviewtobefairwiththe firms which have been affected by the application of criteriadetailedintheprecedingnotes,thetotalquantityof 120.19LCKMmaybeincreasedbyabout10%to132.19 LCKM. The increased quantity of 12 LCKM may, therefore, be distributed amongst the following firms in viewoftheirperformanceandeffectivedistributionofthe overflow: LCKM TCL FINOLEX RPG UBL HTL TOTAL 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 3.5 12.0 The proposal submitted is approved with above modification. The total quantity required for the revised targets and additional cable required for maintenance and planning purpose is 387 LCKM. After issue of this order as
Contd....

69

approved,actionmaybetakenforprocurementofbalance quantity,theallocationforwhichmaybeworkedoutearly th andputtomeby30 November,1995forapproval. Signature 03/11/95 (SUKHRAM) 70.Thesaidorderpassedbytheaccusedwascompliedwithbythe department immediately. Accordingly, a Letter of Intent, Ex.PW5/10(placedatpage235/CofD5)forprocurementofa quantity of 9.23LCKM (2.22 LCKM adhoc purchase+ 3.51 LCKM recommended by the department + 3.5 which was increasedbytheaccused)ofcableswasissuedtoM/sHTL.

71.IthasbeensubmittedbytheprosecutionthatSh.RPHansinthe note dated 26.09.95, Ex.PW2/D4 recorded that because of revisedrequirement,atotalquantityof387.15LCKMwasworked outfor the year 199596for procurement. He also noted that TEChadrecommendedthat173.93LCKMmightbepurchased oncashbasisfor199596andthisproposalhadbeenapproved
Contd....

70

byMember(P),Member(F)andChairman(TC).Asdesiredby the Chairman (TC) he put up this note along with chart (Ex.PW14/6 placed at page 161/C of D5) showing supplier wise allocation of this quantity placed before the accused for approval.Theaccuseddidnotapprovetheallocationof178.93 LCKMtothevariousvendorsasproposedbythedepartment.He wasoftheviewthatthedepartment,initssaidproposal,hadnot takentherealisticviewintheallocationofthecabletovarious vendors,whichhadbeendonewithouttakingintoconsideration theircapacitytosupplythequantityallocatedtothem,especially whenonlysixmonthshadbeenleftinthesaidfinancialyearto purchasethesaidquantityofcable. Therefore,hepassedthe orderdated30.09.95,Ex.PW2/8.

72.Accordingtoprosecution,theMinister(accused)inhisnotehad laidmuchstresstofindoutthecapacityofthevendorstosupply

Contd....

71

thecablewithinthestipulatedperiodofsixmonths,therefore,he laiddowntheparameters/formulatobeadoptedtofindoutthe capacity of each vendor to supply the cable. The accused in crossexaminationofthewitnesseshavetriedtoelicitfromthem thatdespitethefactthattherewasnobasicdifferenceinformula adoptedbyboththeTECandtheparameterssetbytheaccused tofindoutthecapacityofthevendorstosupplythecables,the departmentcouldhavemanagedtoproposelesserquantityfor allocation to HTL than what was proposed by TEC. The Ld.Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that there were certaindifferencesbetweenthecriterions/parametersadoptedby TEC and the parameters as laid down by the accused, which resulted in the allocation of lesser quantity to HTL. Following werethemaindifferences:

i)TEC,inordertofindoutthecapacityofeachvendorto manufacture, had taken into consideration the manufacturingcapacity ofeachvendoras mentionedin
Contd....

72

thedetailsgiveninAnnexureVI(Ex.PW2/D5placedat page 25/C of D5) to the TEC report issued by Telecommunication and Engineering Center dated 06.03.95. Itmaybementionedherethatmanufacturing capacityofM/sHTL,onthedateofopeningofthetender, was14.00LCKMbutwasincreasedto24.00LCKMfrom 01.06.95,andsimilarlyinthecaseofM/sBhagyanagar MetalsLtd.(BML)itwas9.30butincreasedto16LCKM from27.03.95(Ex.PW2/D5placedatpage25/CofD5). The TEC while allocating the quantities of cables to various vendors took into consideration their enhanced manufacturing capacity only which had increased in betweenthedatesofopeningoftendersandfinalizationof tenders by it, whereas the accused had directed the department to take into account the manufacturing capacityofeachvendorwhichwasinexistenceasonthe dateofopeningthetendersi.e.24.01.95. ii)TEC,indeterminingtheyearlymanufacturingcapacityof eachvendor,calculatedthesameonthebasisoftwiceof its best performance during the last six months from October, 1994 to March, 1995, while the department in workingouttheallocationtobemadetovariousvendors, asperaforesaidorderoftheaccused,tookintoaccount thesupplyperformanceofthevendorsduringthefirstsix monthsof199596i.efrom01.04.95to30.09.95. iii)TECworkedouttheallocationofcabletoeachvendor fortheyear199596onthebasisofthesuppliesmadeby theminthelastsixmonthsof199495againstthetender ofthelastyearoncashpayment,whileasperthesaid orderoftheaccused,thedepartment,inordertoworkout
Contd....

73

theallocationofcablefortheremainingsixmonths,had taken into account the supply record of each vendor againstlastyear'sallocationandsuppliesmadetilldate i.e.30.09.95againsttheordersondeferredpaymentand adhocordersplacedearlierintheyear.Here,itmaybe pointedoutthatthedepartment,inordertoascertainthe supplypositionofeachvendor,tookintoconsiderationthe supplies made by the vendors against the deferred paymentsonlyonthesaidorderoftheaccused.

73.Therefore,theparametersadoptedbyTECandthedepartment as per theorders oftheaccusedweredifferent,therefore, the resultswereboundtobedifferentduetothefactsasmentioned aboveindetail.Itmaybementionedthatsaidparameterswere appliednotonlytoM/sHTLbuttoothervendorsalsoinorderto find out their realistic capacity to supply the cables within the stipulatedtimeofsixmonths.

74.Ithasbeensubmittedbytheld.SpecialPublicProsecutorthatthe note dated 30.09.95 seems to be very innocuous and at first

Contd....

74

glanceitappearstobeanoutburstofaMinisterwhowasfeeling so much worried as to how this much of quantity (178.93 as recommended by TEC and the rest of the quantity which had beenincreasedbecauseofenhancedtarget)couldbeprocured withinsuchashortperiodofsixmonths.Hehassubmittedthatin his note there appeared a sense of frustration on the part of accused/Sukh Ram with the working of his department which, withouttakingintoaccountthepastperformanceofthevendors, recommendedfortheallocationofthatmuchquantityofcablefor supply,whichtheywerenotcapabletoaccomplishandthatwas why the accused had ordered the department to work out the quantitytobereallocatedtotheeachvendoraccordingtotheir performance.Thelastlineofhisnotewouldshowhisanguishon thisissueasifhewantedthedepartmenttoallocatethatmuchof quantitytothevendorswhichtheywereinaactualpositionto supply. The Ld.Special Public Prosecutor has argued that

Contd....

75

however,thefutureeventswouldshowthatthisorderwhich,on itsface,appearedtobeinnocuous,waspassedwithanoblique motiveandtoputthevendorsinasenseoffearanddoubtthat theymightnotgeteventhatquantitywhichtheyotherwisecould havegotandthusbythisorderheopenedafloodgateforthe unscrupulous vendors to approach him to cause them undue advantageforconsideration.

75.Asdiscussedabove,thedepartmentworkedoutthequantityto be allocated to all the vendors in accordance with the parameters/guidelines set out by the accused and prepared a chartinatabularformwhichisEx.PW5/6andplacedinthefile (Ex.PW5/1) at page 194/C (D5). Sh.Narendra Kumar, while submittingthechart,inhisnotedated18.10.95,Ex.PW5/7noted that 'the supply position of M/s HTL and M/s HCL remain precarious.'

Contd....

76

76.Theld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasarguedthatifprocurement ofcable,asseenfromthenotedated30.09.95,wastheurgent need of the hour which was hovering in the mind of accused whenhepassedsaidorder,thenwhyaccused,despiteknowing theprecarioussupplypositionofM/sHTLwhichwasapparent fromthesaidchartandthenoteofSh.NarendraKumar,allocated aquantityof3.5LCKMtoM/sHTLinadditiontotheproposed allocationof3.51LCKMtoitbythedepartment?

77.He has further argued that the accused, vide his note dated 03.11.95 marked as Ex.PW2/9, in place of allocating the quantitiesasproposedbythedepartmenttovariousvendorsin order to accomplish the object or urgent supply of the cables, increasedthetotalquantityby10%from120.19LCKMto132.19 LCKM and thus, one fails to comprehend as to how the said

Contd....

77

increaseinquantitywouldhavefacilitatedtheaccusedingetting quicksupplywithintheperiodofsixmonths. Hehassubmitted that on the contrary this order would have further delayed the supply of the cables as by this order accused increased the allocationofcabletothevendorwhosetrackrecordofsupplywas verypoor.

78.Hehasfurthersubmittedthattherewasnoneedfortheaccused toincreasethequantityof120.19LCKMby10%andthusitis difficult to understand as to how this step in increasing the quantitywouldhavehelpedthedepartmentinachievingthetarget of supply of cables as recommended by the TEC for the year 199596 as also the enhanced quantity. The reason for this increasewhichwasgivenbyaccusedinhiswordswas'witha viewtobefairwiththefirmswhichhavebeenaffectedbythe applicationofthecriteriadetailedintheprecedingnote,thetotal

Contd....

78

quantity of 120.19 LCKM may be increased by about 10% to 132.19 LCKM. The so increased quantity of 12 LCKM may, therefore, be distributed in view of their performance and effectivedistributionoftheoverflow.'(emphasisgiven).Thisisa flimsygroundinviewofpoorsupplyperformancebyM/sHTL.

79.Theevidencerecordedduringtrialsuggestabsolutelyadifferent reasonforrecordingthenotedated03.11.95.Ld.counselforthe defence while crossexamining Sh.A K Jhedke (PW5) elicited fromhimthatifthepercentageofsupply iscalculatedonthe basisofactualordersplacedonHTLby30.09.95,thepercentage giveninthechartwouldbeincorrect.Itiswrongtosuggestthat somehow the accused came to know the mistakes which we committed while preparing Ex.PW5/6 and vide his note dated 03.11.95,Ex.PW2/9,herecordedtheminutestopartiallycorrect thatmistake(page11ofcrossexaminationdated10.07.02).

Contd....

79

This suggestion suggests that the reason for increase in the quantityandallocationofadditionalquantityof3.5LCKMtoM/s HTLbytheaccusedwasnotthattheinjusticehadbeencausedto M/sHTLbecauseofthecriterialaiddownbytheaccused.Infact noinjusticewas causedtoM/sHTLinallocatingaquantity of 3.51bythedepartmentonthebasisofitsperformance.Onthe contrary,it(HTL)gotunduepecuniaryadvantagefromtheorder dated03.11.95passedbytheaccused.

80.Accused/Sukh Ram has come up with an absolutely different versioninhisstatementu/s313Cr.PC.Inreplytothequestion no.32,hehasstated'thatthecablemanufacturerssupplyingthe cable had no market outside the Department of Telecommunication.Therefore,apolicywasadoptedsothatno cablemanufacturerhadtoclosedownitsmanufacturingbusiness fortheproportionate distributionofthe overflow amongstall to

Contd....

80

ensurethatallmanufacturerscouldgettheirshareofbusiness andavoidanyclosingdownoftheirmanufacturingbusiness.'The Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasarguedthatifitwastheobject of the accused behind the said order to increase the quantity, thentherewasnojustificationfortheaccusedtolaydownthe guidelinesinhisorderdated30.09.95whichwastoaffectM/s HTLadversely.Hefurthersubmittedthatifthiswasrealobject,it wouldhavebeenmentionedinthesaidorderdated03.11.95.

81.Inthisregardcourtcannotloosesightastowhattheaccused saidinstatementu/s313Cr.PC.Inreplytothequestionno.174, hehasstatedthat'Iactedonandwiththeaidandadviceofthe officialsofmydepartmentandnottakingdecisiononmyown.' Buttherecorddoesnotsupporthisassertion. Onthecontrary, he acted much against the advice of the department. The departmenthadpointedouttheprecarioussupplypositionofM/s

Contd....

81

HTL. Hadheactedontheadviceofthedepartmenthewould haveallocatedonly3.51LCKM,assuggestedbythedepartment, inviewofsupplypositionofM/sHTLandtheadditionalquantity of3.5LCKM,wouldnothavebeenallocatedtoit.

82.Theaccused,beforepassingtheorderdated03.11.95,whereby heincreasedthequantityby10%didnotconsultevenSh.RK Takkar,ChairmanofTelecomCommissionnorhegotitsfinancial implicationexamined.ThisfactisevidentfromstatementofSh.R K Takkar, which he gave when he was examined in court as PW2. Accordingtothiswitnessideallythequantityshouldnot have been increased and if increased it should have been distributedonproratabasisamongstalltheapprovedbidders. Toaquestionputbythecourtastowhetherextraquantitycould havebeenallocatedtoavendorbeyondhisassessedcapacity, he replied that no quantity should have been allocated to any

Contd....

82

vendorbeyondhisassessedcapacitytosupply.

83.Ithasbeenarguedbyld.counselforaccused/SukhRamthatno faultcanbefoundwiththeorderoftheaccusedasM/sHTLwas adversely affected party because of the criteria laid down by accused in his order dated 30.09.96 (Ex.PW2/8). He has advancedhissubmissionbasedonthereasoningthatTEChad allocatedaquantityof9.64LCKMbutbyadoptingtheparameter setoutinhissaidorderdated30.09.95,thedepartmentworked outonlyaquantityof3.51LCKMand,therefore,theaccused,in ordertocompensatethelosstobesufferedbythisvendor,being anaffectedparty,allocatedanadditionalquantityof3.5LCKM,so thatthisvendorcouldgettheallocationofatotalquantityof9.23 LCKM (2.22 LCKM against adhoc purchase + 3.51 LCKM recommendedbythedepartment+3.5LCKMadditionalquantity allocated by the accused = 9.23 LCKM). According to the

Contd....

83

ld.counselforaccusedthatM/sHTLstillremainedinalossof 0.41LCKM.Onefailstounderstandastohowthisargumentof ld.counsel for the defence would help him in rebutting the contentionoftheprosecutionandthechargeframedbythiscourt thatbypassingtheorderdated03.11.95theaccused,beinga public servant, committed criminal misconduct by obtaining pecuniaryadvantageforM/sHaryanaTelecomLimitedbycorrupt orillegalmeans,orbyabusinghispositionasapublicservantby additionalallocationof3.5LCKMofPIJFcablestoM/sHTL.

84.The Ld.Special Public Prosecutor has then submitted that assumingthesubmissionofld.counselforthedefenceascorrect one for the sake of argument, there were a number of other vendors also who were adversely affected by the criteria laid downbytheaccusedbuttherewasnoincreaseintheirallocation of cables which was worked out by the department. He has

Contd....

84

drawnattentionofthecourt thatSh.R PHans (PW28),inhis crossexamination dated 27.09.06 at page 3, has stated that 'basedonthecriteriagivenbytheMinistertherevisedallocation was reduced in respect of certain firms as compared to the allocationrecommendedtothembytheTEC.ThefirmsareM/s TTL; TCL; CMI; UPCOM; BML; HTL; TRACO, BEOL and DELTON, as is evident from Ex.PW5/6' (194/C of D5). But none of them except M/s HTL and M/s TCL were benefited. Therefore,Iamoftheviewthatthecontentionoftheld.counsel fordefencethattheaccusedallocatedadditionalquantityof3.5 LCKMPIJFCablestoM/sHTLasitwastheaffectedvendorand sohewantedtocompensateit,hasnoforce.

85.Theld.counselforthedefencehasfurtherarguedthatitwasthe condition of the tender, Ex.PW1/1 as contained in Section IV para 5 that order for 2050% of the tendered quantity may be

Contd....

85

placedtothevendorwhosebidhadbeendeterminedaslowest evaluatedbid.M/sHTLhadgiventhelowestrates,anditsrates wereratedasL1,therefore,TEChaddoneagreatinjusticeby allotting to it only 9.64 LCKM for the year 199596 and that it should have been allocated a sufficiently large quantity of the cables. According to him the accused, by his order dated 03.11.95,onlytriedtorectifythemistakewhichwascausedby TECandnounduepecuniarybenefitwascausedtoM/sHTL. Butthisargumentalsodoesnothelpaccused/SukhRamasitis notthecaseoftheaccusedthathehadallocatedtheadditional quantityof3.5LCKMtoM/sHTLonlytocompensateitforthe losscausedbyallocationdonebyTEC.Moreover,theargument oftheld.counselforaccusediswithoutforceasnoinjustice,in any way, was caused to M/s HTL by TEC by allocating 9.64 LCKMfortheyear199596toit. Theaforesaidconditionofthe tenderwassubjecttomanufacturingcapacityasascertainedby

Contd....

86

thepurchaser.TEChadgiventhecogentreasonsandadopteda reasonedformulainassessingthemanufacturingcapacityofa vendorasisevidentfromthefollowingextractfromthereportof TEC: However, it is seen that in the past some of the manufacturers have not been able to supply the full quantity ordered on them even though their rated manufacturing capacity was higher. The TEC is, therefore,oftheopinionthatfordeterminingtherealistic manufacturing capacity of each bidder, twice its best performance during the last 6 months period (October, 1994 to March, 1995) may be taken into consideration.(Ex.PW2/D6,atpage5/CofD5).

86.ThesupplypositionofM/sHTL,asisevidentfromEx.PW10/1 (page34/CofD5)was4.82LCKMfromOctober,1994toMarch, 1995. Tofindouttheannualcapacityofthisfirmitdoubledthe figure which came out to be 9.64 LCKM. This is the quantity whichwasrecommendedbyTECforallocationtothisvendorfor theyear199596.
Contd....

87

87.The TEC report shows that all aspects as being agitated by ld.counselfortheaccused,wereconsideredbyit,andnoinjustice wascausedtoM/sHTLbyTEC.

88.Ld.counsel for accused has submitted that purchases against TenderNo.1421MMT(MMS),Ex.PW1/1(page124/CofD5) weretobemadeagainstcashandnotagainstdeferredpayment, therefore, the department had no justification to take into considerationthesuppliesmadebythevendorsagainstdeferred payment,forassessingandworkingouttheannualcapacityofa vendor.Almostallthewitnessesofthedepartmentwerecross examinedatlengthonthispoint. Thereisnodisputefromthe sideoftheprosecutionthatsuppliesagainstthistenderwereto be made against cash payment and not against the deferred payment.Ifailtounderstandastowhattheaccusedwantedto

Contd....

88

achievefromthiscrossexaminationandargument.Asdiscussed inparas 101and102(infra),thatsincetheremainingquantity which was to be purchased, was not governed by terms and conditionofthistender,therefore,adiscussionwasgoingonin thefileastohowtheremainingquantityshouldbepurchased, whetheragainstcashpaymentorondeferredpayment. Inmy view that aspect had nothing to do with this case, and more particularly with the charge, which the accused is facing. The argument that the department should not have taken into considerationthesuppliesmadeagainstthedeferredpayment, whileworkingoutthesupplypositionofavendor,iswithoutmerit forthereasonthatthesupplypositionofnotonlyM/sHTLbutall thevendors,againstdeferredpayment,wasconsideredwithout any exception. Further, it was the accused himself who had askedinhisorderdated30.09.95thatthedepartmentshouldtake into consideration supply position of each vendor, inter alia,

Contd....

89

ordersondeferredpayment. TEChadtakenintoaccountonly that supply which was made against cash payment. The department,incompliancewiththeguidelineslaidbytheaccused inhisorderdated30.09.96,hadtakenintoaccountthesupply positionofeachvendoragainstdeferredpaymentalso.

89.Ithasbeenarguedbytheld.counselfortheaccusedthatinthe department every officer had powers to increase the tendered quantityofcablesbutwhentheaccusedbeingMinister,byhis orderdated03.11.95increasedthequantity,hisactisbeingseen asillegal.Therewasonlyoneinstanceinwhichthedepartment had increased the tendered quantity. It was for an specific purpose. The instant tender was floatedfor a quantity of 352 LCKM. Itwasproposedtoincreaseitto359.29LCKMbythe TenderEvaluationCommittee.Thereasonhasbeengiveninthe notedated07.07.95,Ex.PW5/2(page2/NofD5)recordedby

Contd....

90

Sh.A K Jedhke (PW5). He has mentioned that while decipheringthesizewisequantitiesofdifferentsizesofcablesin KM as approved and included in the bid document, the total comesto359.29LCKM.Thetenderwasevaluatedfortheabove quantity. This,inmyview,cannotbesaidasincreasebythe TEC.

90.Theld.counselfortheaccusedhasfurtherpointedoutthatthe department by enhancing the target for the year 199596 increasedthequantityto387.15LCKM.Beforedealingwiththis point,itmaybepointedthatthisincreasedquantity,becauseof enhancedtarget,wasapprovedbytheMember(P),Member(F) andChairman,TelecomCommunication.Sh.RKTakkar(PW2) has stated that under delegation of power made by Telecom Commission,theapprovalbyMember(P)andMember(F)used to be taken as approval of the Commission. Sh.Arun Kumar

Contd....

91

(PW10)inhiscrossexaminationdated20.07.02atpage2has statedthatthetargetforeachyearusedtobefixedbyTelecom Commission. In view of this, it can not be said that the departmenthadnopowertoincreasethesame.Here,itmaybe pointedoutthatprosecutionhasnotdisputedthepowerofthe accused as Minister to increase the quantity. It is common knowledgethateverypublicservanthassomeofficialpowersand those powers are meant for being used/exercised. But the momentthepowersareabusedforobtaining/causingpecuniary advantage to himself or to some other person it becomes an offence. The accused, as discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs,hadnotusedhispowersasapublicservantinthe interestofthedepartment. Tothecontrary,hehadabusedhis powers for obtaining/causing pecuniary advantage to M/s HTL. Thus,theargumentoftheld.counselfortheaccusedinbereftof anysubstance.

Contd....

92

91.Ithasbeenthenarguedbytheld.counselfortheaccusedthat theactsoftheaccusedwhenhepassedtheorderdated03.11.95 bywhichheallocatedanadditionalquantityof3.5LCKMtoHTL ortheotherorderdated08.05.96{discussedwhiledealingwith issue of 4 LCKM (infra)} by which he (accused) directed immediateplacementofsupplyof4LCKMtoM/sHTLdespitethe adviceofthedepartmentthatnofreshorderbeplacedonthis vendortillitexecutedtheexistingorder,didnotcauseanylossto the department/Government. The ld.Special Public Prosecutor hassubmittedthatSection13(1)(d)ofthePCAct,1988,nowhere provides thatwhen theaccused, as public servant, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, it should result in corresponding loss to the Government.Ifindmeritinthecontentionoftheld.SpecialPublic Prosecutorthatitisnotaningredientofanoffenceu/s13(1)(d)of

Contd....

93

PCActthatsomecorrespondingpecuniarylossbecausedtothe Governmentordepartment.

92.Ld.counselfortheaccusedhasfurthercontendedthatifaccused had committed any irregularity when he passed the aforesaid orders,thesubordinateofficersweredutyboundtopointoutthat suchorderswereillegal,therefore,heshouldrefrainhimselffrom passingsuchorders.Hehassubmittedthatthisinactiononthe partofdepartmentalofficers,withoutanyfaultormotiveonthe partoftheaccused,resultedinpecuniaryadvantage,ifany,to HTL. This contention is devoid of any merit. First of all, no subordinateofficercanchallengeordoubtthecorrectnessofan orderpassedbytheMinister. Secondly,intheinstantcasethe department had repeatedly pointed out the precarious supply positionofM/sHTLandgavetheaccusedtheirsuggestionswith factsandfiguresbutdespitethis,theaccusedallocatedadditional

Contd....

94

quantityofcablestoHTL,obviouslywithanulteriormotive.

93.Ithasbeenarguedbytheld.counselfortheaccusedthatthe accusedvidehisorderdated03.11.95,Ex.PW2/9increasedthe totalquantityof120.19LCKMby10%to132.19LCKMbutthe chargeframedagainsttheaccuseddoesnotmentionthisquantity of12LCKM. Fromwhathasbeenarguedbytheld.counselfor the defence, I gather that he wanted to submit that the accused/Sukh Ram, if at all, abused his official position for obtainingpecuniaryadvantageforhimselforforanyotherperson, itwasinrespectto12LCKMcablesandnotinrespectof3.5 LCKM only, therefore, the charge must have been framed accordingly,i.eforwholeofthequantity.Ifailtounderstandthat howthisargumentcouldbeofanyhelptotheaccused/SukhRam andwhatbenefittheaccusedwantstodrivefromthissubmission. It may be mentioned that the accused/Sukh Ram was charge

Contd....

95

sheetedbytheCBIforoffenceofconspiracywhichwashatched by him with his coaccused/D S Choudhary and in pursuance thereof he caused pecuniary advantage to HTL by allocating, withoutanyjustification,quantityof3.5LCKMofthecables.The allocationofadditionalquantityofthecablestootherfirms,as mentionedinthesaidorderpassedbytheaccusedon30.09.95, isnotasubjectmatterofthiscase.Thiswasthereasonthatonly 3.5 LCKM quantity was mentioned in the charge. It may be mentionedthatinrespecttootherpartiesthereisnoevidencelike thiscase,abouttherecoveryofanyamountbelongingtothose parties from the possession of the accused/Sukh Ram. Moreover,orderonchargedated01.06.02passedbythiscourt cannotbeignored. Thiscourtinthesaidorderhastakeninto considerationthewholequantityof12LCKMofcablesobserving thatitshowedthattheaccusedabusedthepublicofficeheldby him at that time with a view to cause pecuniary advantage to

Contd....

96

those vendors. For the proper appreciation of this point the relevant portions of the said order on charge are reproduced hereunder: 15.Videthisorderdated30.09.05,accused/SukhRam whowasthenMOS(C),GovernmentofIndia,tookapolicy decisionthatforthepurposeofplacingorder,thecapacity ofthevendorhadtobederivedonthebasisoftheannual capacity as on the date of opening of the tender, past record of the supply, supplies made against orders on deferredpaymentbasisaswellasadhocordersplaced earlierduringtheyear199596....Accused/SukhRamdid notatalldisputethecorrectnessoffigurestakenandthe allocation proposed by the department in the revised proposal.Hedidnotmodifyorreversehisearlierdecision dated30.09.95.Whathedidwastoincreasethequantity ofpurchaseby12LCKMandallocate3.5LCKMoutofit toM/sHTL.Theonlyreasongivenbytheaccused/Sukh Ramforincreasingthepurchaseorderby12LCKMwas tocompensatethosevendorswhohadbeenaffectedby application of the revised criteria laid down by him on 30.09.1995........Hedidnotsaythatthecriterialaiddown byhimon30.09.1995waswrongorunjustified.Hadthat beentheposition,hewouldhavechangedthecriteria.If accordingtohimthecriterialaiddownbyhimwasjustified andinpublicinterest,itwasimmaterialifanyvendorwas adversely affected by the application of that criteria.........The very act of the accused/Sukh Ram in increasingthepurchasequantityby12LCKM,solelyfor thepurposeofcompensatingthosevendorswhichwere
Contd....

97

affected by his policy decision, without changing or modifying that policy decision, in any manner, shows abuseofthepublicofficeheldbyhimatthattime,witha viewtocausepecuniaryadvantagetothosevendors.

94.Inviewofthisdiscussion,Ifindnomeritinthesubmissionsof ld.counselforaccusedonthispoint.

ALLEGATION RELATING TO IMMEDIATE PLACEMENT PURCHASEORDEROF4LCKMPIJFCABLESONM/sHTL 95.Thesecondallegationagainstaccused/SukhRamisaboutthe allocation of 4 LCKM PIJF Cables to HTL to obtain pecuniary advantageforit(HTL)bycorruptorillegalmeansorbyabusing hispositionaspublicservant.

96.Here,itwouldbepertinenttomentionthatthisallegationwasnot thepartofthechargesheetsubmittedbytheInvestigatingOfficer inthiscaseandalsoofthesanctionorder,Ex.PW26/A,however,

Contd....

98

atthetimeofframingcharge,theld.prdecessorofthecourtfound sufficientmaterialtoframethechargeinrespecttothisallegation alsoagainstaccused/SukhRam.Accordingly,theld.predecessor framedthechargeforanoffencepunishableu/s13(2)r/wSec. 13(1)(d)ofthePCAct.

97.While dealing with this allegation for framing the charge, the ld.predecessor in his order dated 01.06.02, on framing of the chargementionedasunder: Investigation carried out by CBI shows that when the department took up further purchase of PIJF Cables in AprilMay,1996,itnotedthatsupplyperformanceofHTL upto February, 1996 was only 59.39% and the order placedondeferredpaymentbasishadnotbeenexecuted sofar,althoughagreementsweresignedintheyear1995 andthecompanyhadbackedoutfromthecommitments made to department to supply cables under deferred payment scheme. It was, therefore, proposed by the departmentthatorderonHTLandtwoothercompanies whosesupplypositionwasnotgood,beplacedonlyafter execution of timely and successful execution of the existing orders already placed on them. However, accused/SukhRam,videhisorderdated08.05.96didnot
Contd....

99

agree with the department and directed immediate placement of the order on these vendors. There was nothingexceptionablewiththeproposalofthedepartment fordeferringplacementofordersonHTL,HCLandTTL, whowerethedefaultersinsupplyoforders,tilltheorders already placed onthem wereexecuted. Withoutgiving any plausible reason, the accused/Sukh Ram directed placing immediate further orders on these vendors, despitenotingtheproposalofthedepartment. Theonly reason given by him for directing immediate order of 4 LCKMonHTLwasthatdefermentofplacementoforder willeffecttimelysupplyofthecables. Thereasongiven by him is very flimsy and no reasonable person could have taken this view. If a vendor had already been defaultingwithbacklogofmorethan40%ofthequantity alreadyorderedonit,itcouldhardlybeexpectedtohave executed fresh orders well in time. If the Minister was concernedabouttimelysupplyofcables,additionalorders shouldhavebeenplacedonthosevendorswhohadspare capacityandwhohadmadetimelysuppliesinthepast. But there was no justification for immediately placing further orders on those vendors who already had substantialbacklogtoclear.(Para20)

98.Forbetterappreciationofthisallegationonewillhavetorevert back to stage of processing of the TEC report in File No. 20360/94MMS,Ex.PW5/1(D5). Thedepartmenthadfloated

Contd....

100

thetenderforthepurchaseofPIJFCablesforaquantityof352 LCKM. However,whiledeciphering thesizewise quantities of differentsizesofcablesinKMsasapprovedandincludedinthe biddocuments,thetotalLCKMtobeprocuredunderthistender cameto359.29LCKMasisclearfromfirstparaofnotedated 07.07.95, Ex.PW5/2 (D5, 1/N) recorded by Sh.A K Jedhke (PW5).TheTenderEvaluationCommitteeexaminedthosebids andfinalizeditsrecommendationsinrespectofpricesforeach type and size of cable and the quantity to be allotted to each successful vendor. The TEC recommended the purchase of 178.93LCKMfortheyear199596and179.05LCKMofcables for the year 199697. It recommended the allocation of 9.64 LCKM and 17.96 LCKM for the year 199596 and 199697 respectivelytoHTL(videEx.PW2/6placedatpage8ofTEC report,D5).However,fromthenotedated07.07.95,Ex.PW5/2 (1/NofD5)recordedbySh.AKJedhke(PW5)andnotedated

Contd....

101

21.07.95, Ex.PW13/D1 (3/N to 5/N of D5) recorded by PW14/Sh.NarendraKumar,Director (MMS),itis apparentthat thetargetforprocurementofthecablesfortheyear199596had beenincreased.Itwasworkedoutandrevisedto387.15LCKM.

99.Since the finalization of the tender for the year 199596 and 199697wouldhavetakensufficienttime,therefore,theTelecom CommissionauthorizedtheCirclesandMTNLtoprocure58.86 LCKMonadhocbasisagainstcashpaymentformeetingtheir urgent requirement for the first quarter of 199596 pending finalizationof the tender. Sh.Narendra Kumar, (PW14)in the aforesaidnote,Ex.PW13/D1(at4/NofD5)hasmentionedit maybenotedthatvideadecisionofTelecomCommission(vide caseno.20360/94MMSandNo.22222/94MMS,copyenclosed vide9499/Cand100105/Crespectively),circlesincludingMTNL have already been authorized for procurement of 58.56 LCKM

Contd....

102

cables on cash basis through adhoc orders to meet urgent requirement of the cable in the first half of 199596, pending finalizationofthe199596cabletender. Thisaspecthadalso been dealt with by Sh.A K Jedhke (PW5) in his note dated 07.07.95,Ex.PW5/2(atpage2/NofD5)wherehespecifically noted,theabovequantityof58.56LCKMhasbeenawardedto the successful firms against the previous tender, (MTNL and DOT)inproportiontotheirallocatedquotainthelasttenderwith theconditionthatthesamewillbeadjustedfromtheirshareof ordersagainstthecurrenttenderifapprovedforprocurementfor theyear199596.

100.Besides,thequantityof58.56LCKMcable,anotherquantityof 85LCKMcablewasavailabletothedepartmentwhichhadbeen arrangedondeferredpaymentbyVLFCell.Itwaspointedoutby Sh.NarenderKumar(PW14)inhisaforesaidnote,Ex.PW13/D1

Contd....

103

thatnetbalancerequirement,aftertakingintoconsiderationthe two supplies (85 LCKM against deferred payment and 58.56 LCKMagainstadhocprocurement)comesto243.59LCKM.

101.The Department of Telecommunication, placed under the situationtoattaintheenhancedtarget,washavingaproblemas howtoprocurethebalancequantityofcablewhetheragainst cash purchases or on deferred payment basis for want cash availability. Sh.NarendraKumar(PW14)inhisaforesaidnote, Ex.PW13/D1 suggested following ways to overcome this difficulty:

I. It was pointed out in the said note, Ex.PW13/D1 at page 4/N that DDG (LTP) had intimated in his note on page84/C(Ex.PW28/D3inD5)thatonly103LCKMof the cable could be purchased on direct purchase i.e against cash and since the circles including MTNL had already ordered to acquire the quantity of 58.56 LCKM againstcash,therefore,thereremainedonlyaquantityof 44.44 LCKM which would be available for purchase
Contd....

104

againstcash.Itwassuggestedthatremainingquantityof 199.15 LCKM may be purchased against deferred payment. He proposed in this regard that this procurementmay bedone by offeringthis quantity ina separatebidtofirmsinterestedinsupplyingondeferred paymentbasisasallofthemmaynotbeinterestedinthis. II. Alternatively, if sufficient funds could be raised by alternative financing, the entire tendered quantity which wasoriginallyfortwoyearsandwhichmatchedmoreor lesswithrevisedrequirement,couldbeprocuredthatyear (199596) on cash and a fresh tender could be floated nextyearafterreassessmentofrequirementfor199697.

102.Thesubsequentnotingmadebytheseniorofficersonthefile, Ex.PW5/1wouldrevealthattheywereexploringthemethodsto procuretheremainingquantityofcablesthrougheithercashor deferredpayment.Thereisnothingonrecordfromwhich,either directlyorbynecessaryimplication,itcanbeinferredthatabove mentionedsuggestionno.(ii)mootedbySh.NarendraKumarwas ever considered and accepted by any of the concerned authorities.

Contd....

105

103.Ifailtounderstandastohowtheld.counselforaccusedhas basedhiswholecrossexaminationofprosecutionwitnessesand theargumentontheassumptionthatthetotalquantityi.e.387.15 LCKM(whichwasworkedoutaftertakingintoconsiderationthe enhancedtarget)wastobepurchasedbythedepartmentonthe terms and conditions as envisaged under the Tender Enquiry (TE) No.1421/94MMT(MMS) opened on 24.01.95 (Ex.PW1/1 page124/CofD5)orTenderEnquiry(TE)No.20360/93MMSI dated23.02.94(PW3/D6)whichprovidedthepurchaseofthe material against cash and there was no provision in them for purchaseofcableagainstdeferredpayment. Onthecontrary, note dated 08.08.05, ExPW2/D3 by Sh.Joseph, Member (Finance)wouldshowthatrecommendationmadebyTECfortwo yearswasapproved.Itreadsasfollows:

Prices and supplier wise allocation (for two years) as recommendedbyTECapproved.Quantitytobeprocured


Contd....

106

in199596asproposedatP.6ante.

104.Thisindicatesthattheenhancedquantity,whichwasworked outbecauseofenhancedtarget,wasnottobepurchasedfrom thetenderedquantityofcablesearmarkedfortheyear199697. Itwouldbefurtherclearfromthesubsequentnotesbytheother seniorofficers.

105.Thenotedated19.09.05(Ex.PW13/D6)recordedbySh.RP Hansprovesthattheactionforprocurementof178.93LCKMas recommendedbyTECandapprovedbyMember(P)andMember (F)wasinitiatedandprocessed.Thesaidnotereadsasunder:

ThecasewasdiscussedintheTCMeetingon15.09.95 pendingdecisionregardingutilizationofadditionalfunds likely to be available on account of license fee from cellular/basicservices....byprivateoperators,wemaytake actionforprocurementof178.93LCKMofPIJFCablesin cashasapprovedon7/N.
Contd....

107

106.Accordingly,videnotedated26.09.95,Ex.PW2/D4recorded by Sh.R PHans,theproposalfortheprocurementofthesaid quantitywasplacedbeforeMOS(C)(theaccused).Theaccused vide his note dated 30.09.95, Ex.PW2/8 and 03.11.95, Ex.PW2/9dealtwiththisaspectfromthisangle. He,nowhere noted that the remaining quantity be purchased and adjusted againstthequantityrecommendedbyTECfortheyear199697 underthesaidtender.Here,itwouldbeappropriatetomention that the accused, as already discussed while dealing with the allegation of allocation of 3.5 LCKM by accused to HTL, had increasedthequantityfrom120.19LCKMto132.19LCKMand notfromthetenderedquantityearmarkedfor199697.

107.Thus, purchase of remaining quantity, which included the quantityof85LCKMcableagainstdeferredpayment,hadnothing

Contd....

108

todowiththequantitytobepurchasedagainstthetenderNo. 1421/94MMT(MMS)dated30.11.94(Ex.PW1/1)andthetender no.20360/93MMS(I) dated 23.02.94 (Ex.PW3/D6) for the previousyear.

108.At this stage, it would be appropriate to also deal with the procurement of 85 LCKM on deferred payment basis. This quantity of 85 LCKM cable was made available by the VLF Departmentwhichwastobepurchasedagainstadifferenttender floatedinthemonthofJune,1994byVLFCell.Thestatementof Smt.AnitaSoni(PW3)whowaspostedasDy.DirectorGeneral (VLF) during 1993 to 1996 is relevant on this point. She has statedthatthejobthesaidbranch(VLF)wastoprocurematerial onleasefinancesanddeferredpaymentbasis.Thenecessityfor purchase on deferred payment basis occurred on account of shortage of funds with the Department and directives of the

Contd....

109

PlanningCommission.Whentargetsfor8 FiveYearPlanwere beingexaminedbythePlanningCommission,itwasfoundthat department'stargetswerebeyondthefundsavailablewithit,and, therefore,itdirectedustoarrangealternativemeansoffinance forpurchasingmaterials,etc.ThereafterinNovember,1993,the departmentstartedpurchaseofmaterialondeferredpaymentand leasefinancebasis.

th

109.She,inher crossexaminationdated 01.07.02 at page2 has statedthat'ourbranchreceivedauthorizationfromMMBranchto makepurchasesondeferredpaymentbasisandweinitiatedthe processaccordingly.'Aftercheckingtherecordshe,inhercross examination dated 04.07.02 has stated 'I have checked the record and found that in fact tender for purchase on deferred payment basis was publishedon 15.06.94.' This refers to the TenderEnquiryNo.957/94dated15.06.94asisapparentfrom

Contd....

110

thestatementofthiswitness(page2&3ofcrossexamination dated10.07.02)andalsofromthedraftagreementenclosedwith the letter no.8024/PIJF2/95/VLF dated 02.03.95 (Ex.PW7/14, D52) which also mentions Tender Enquiry No.957/94 dated 15.06.94 and Offer No.8024/PIJF2/94VLF dated 02.02.95 under caption 'Concerned References.' The agreements for supplyofPIJFcableondeferredpaymentbasisexecutedbyHTL withPunjabTelecomCircledated07.04.95,Ex.PW7/16(placed inD52)anddated22.06.95,Ex.PW3/D4(placedatpage38/C ofD14) executedbythesaidfirmwithHaryanaTelecomCircle also refers to offer no.8024/PIJF2/94VLF dated 02.02.95 at sl.no.2andacceptanceletterno.HTL/Sales/640dated09.02.95at sl.no.3underthecaption'ConcernedReferences.'

110.Thus,itisamplyclearthatthesupplyofthisquantityofcable againstthedeferredpaymentemanatedfromtheTenderEnquiry

Contd....

111

No.957/94 dated 15.06.94 and not from Tender Enquiry No. 20360/93MMSdated23.02.94whichwasopenedon22.04.94. The reference of this tender in draft agreement and other correspondenceappearstohavebeenmadeasallotherterms and conditions etc. of Tender Enquiry No.20360/93 MMSI openedon22.04.94wouldbeapplicableforprocurementofthe cables under this scheme. A substantial portion of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence is directed to show that HTL was not bound to supply the cable underdeferredpaymentschemeasboththetenderse.gTENo. 20360/93 MMS dated 23.02.94 and TE 1421/94MMT (MMS) dated30.11.94andopenedon24.01.95providedforsupplyof cable against cash payment and not again deferred payment, therefore, the non supply of cables by HTL against deferred payment should have been not taken into consideration by Smt.Anita Soni (PW3), Sh.R P Hans (PW28), Sh.V K Arya

Contd....

112

(PW4) and Sh.A S Bhola (PW15) in their notes Ex.PW3/2; PW2/D9;PW4/1andPW5/D1respectively.Consequently,it hasbeenarguedbytheld.counselforaccused/SukhRamthat the accused did not cause any undue pecuniary advantage to HTL which may attract any penal provision against him. The argumentismisconceivedasisapparentfromtheevidenceon record.

111.ThechartEx.PW7/15(placedinD52)whichistheannexure totheaforesaidletter,Ex.PW7/14(placedinD52)andletter F.No.8024/PIJF2/HTL/96VLFdated09.10.96addressedtoHTL bySh.ManojAnand,Director(PFC),Ex.PW3/D3(D56atpage 76/C)wouldshowthatHTLwasallottedatotalquantityof4.77 LCKMcablesondeferredpaymenttermsagainstthistender.All the other firms were also allotted different quantity of cables underthisschemeonthesaidterms. Outofthesaidquantity

Contd....

113

(4.77 LCKM) the HTL was to supply 2.40 LCKM to Punjab TelecomCircle,1.64LCKMtoHaryanaTelecomCircleand0.73 LCKMtoRajasthanTelecomCircle.

112.Atthisstage,itwouldbenecessarytoremovetheconfusion causedbythefactthatifHTLwasallottedatotalquantityof4.77 LCKMwhythewitnessesintheirstatementsandinthevarious notes/correspondences recorded by them have referred to a quantity of only 2.37 LCKM. The statement (examinationin chief)ofSh.GLSethi(PW7)dated11.07.02andtheletterdated 10.07.95 from Sh.K C Jindal, Dy.General Manager, Punjab TelecomCircle,Ex.PW7/18wouldrevealthatnocableunderthe deferredpaymentschemewassuppliedbyHTL.Therefore,the PunjabCirclevideitsletterdated28.08.95,Ex.PW7/20(placed in D52) cancelled the said agreement dated 07.04.95, Ex.PW7/16 (placed in D52). After the cancellation of this

Contd....

114

agreement, the HTL was left to supply 1.64 LCKM and 0.73 LCKMtoHaryanaandRajasthanTelecomCirclesrespectively. Thetotalofthesetwoquantitiescomesto2.37LCKM. Thisis why the said quantity was referred to by the aforementioned witnessesandintheirnotes/correspondence.

113.The ld.counsel for the accused has argued that not only agreementwithPunjabTelecomCircle,theagreementsexecuted withremainingi.e.HaryanaandRajasthanTelecomCircleswere alsocancelledandthequantityof1.64LCKMtobesuppliedto HaryanaTelecomCirclebythisfirmwasevenreallocatedtoM/s RPGTelecom,M/sUPCOMCablesandM/sSterlite,therefore, thereremainednoquantitytobesuppliedbyHTLunderdeferred paymentscheme. He,inordertostrengthenhisargument,has relieduponnotedated20.10.95recordedbySh.ManojAnand, Asstt.Director General (LF), Ex.PW3/D7 (placed at 41/N and

Contd....

115

42/NofD55). Thisargumentismisleading. Aperusalofthis notewouldshowthatitsfirstpartdealswithcancellationofthe agreementexecutedbyHTLwithPunjabCircle.Itmentionsthe approval of Telecom Commission and Member (P) Telecom Commissionforthecancellationandreallocationofthequantity of2.40LCKMallocated toPunjabTelecomCircletothe other firms. Intheremainingpartofhissaidnotehehasmentioned that the Haryana Telecom Circle was also facing the similar problem and the firm had not supplied any quantity of cables against the agreement executed by the firm for the supply of cable under this scheme. He, therefore, suggested that the quantityof1.64LCKMallottedtoHaryanaTelecomCirclemight bereallottedtotheaforementionedthreefirms. Butthisnote remainedatthestageofproposalonly.Thereisnoevidenceon recordtosubstantiatetheclaimofthedefencethattheagreement fordeferredpaymentwascancelledbyHaryanaTelecomCircle

Contd....

116

anditscancellationwasapprovedbytheTelecomCommission. Same is the position in respect to Rajasthan Telecom Circle. Thus,thesetwoagreementsremainedaliveandHTLhadyetto supplytherespectivequantityunderthesaiddeferredpayment scheme.

114.Inthisbackdrop,itwasimperativeforthedepartmentandthe concernedofficerstotakeintoconsiderationthesupplyposition ofallthefirmsnotonlyagainstcashpaymentbutalsounderthe deferredpaymentschemebeforeanyfurtherallocationofcables wasmadetoanyfirmincludingHTL.

115.Thenotedated08.12.95(Ex.PW2/D9placedinD4at4/N and 5/N) recorded by Sh.R P Hans, while dealing with the procurementofremaining111.4LCKM,wouldshowthatoutof85 LCKM allocated under deferred payment scheme only 65.33

Contd....

117

LCKMwasreportedtohavebeensupplieduptill31.10.95. He further mentioned in the said note that while there has been abnormal delay in supply of cables under deferred payment scheme by M/s HCL, M/s HTL refused to supply the cables againstdeferredpaymentevenaftersigningtheagreement.

116.Supply position against deferred payment scheme had considerably improved by 01.03.96 when Smt.Anita Soni recorded the note on that date. She in her statement dated 06.06.02 on page 2 has stated vide my note dated 01.03.96, which is Ex.PW3/2 (in D4 at page 11/N) I noted that out of 85.33 LCKM PIJF Cables under DFP terms, 77.58 had been receivedand7.77LCKMhadnotbeenreceived.Outofitshare ofHCLwas5.4LCKM..........Afterconsultingotherfilesavailable inthecourt,Isaythatremainingbacklogof2.37LCKMagainst orderondeferredpaymentbasispertainedtoHaryanaTelecom

Contd....

118

Ltd. Ihavealreadydiscussedthatagainstthetwoagreements forsupplyofcablesunderdeferredpaymentschemewhichHTL had executed with Haryana Telecom Circle and Rajasthan TelecomCircle,itwastosupply2.37LCKMcables.Thus,itwas onlyHTLwhichdidnotsupplyanyquantitytothecirclesunder thisscheme.

117.From these notes it can be gathered that all the other firms exceptHTLhadsuppliedtheirquotaof thecables againstthe saidscheme.Here,itwouldnotbeoutofcontexttomentionthat HCLwasaPublicSectorunit,therefore,itcannotbeequated withotherprivatefirmsasnooneinHCLwastogetbenefitoutof thedelayedsupplyofthecableunderthesaidscheme.

118.Inthiscontext,itmayalsobepointedoutthatuntilFebruary, 1996,ithadnotbeendecidedastohowtheremainingquantity

Contd....

119

should be purchased, whether against cash or on deferred payment. On 14.02.96, Sh.R K Takkar, Chairmanof Telecom Commission(PW2)recordedanoteEx.PW2/5(placedatpage 10/N of D4) that 'we are facing a cash crunch and Finance Ministryhadnotallowedustospendtheproceedsofthelicense fee. Market borrowing amounting to Rs.1700 crores have not been raised. We may buy these cables on deferred payment basis.' He marked this note in the file D4 to MOS(C) i.e accused/Sukh Ram. Despite this the accused on very flimsy groundorderedtopurchasetheremainingquantityagainstcash, videnotedated28.02.96,Ex.PW2/6(placedatpage11/Nof D4)recordedbytheaccused. Thesaidnoteisreproducedas under:

Ihavebeeninformedtimeandagainbythefieldunits that the supply of cables on deferred payment are not being made in time by the suppliers and further such suppliers are approaching for converting the deferred
Contd....

120

paymenttocashpayment.Inordertoavoidthisexigency, wemayimmediatelyorderthisquantityoncashpayment basis. Otherwisealso,thepaymentagainstthissupply willbedueonlyinthenextfinancialyearwhenthefund positionisexpectedtobebetter.Thedetaileddistribution ofthisquantitymaybeputuptomewithinaweek.

119.FromthisorderHTLwastheonlyfirmwhichwasbenefitedasit hadnotsuppliedanyquantityagainstthedeferredpaymentand hadevenrefusedtodoso.Thisfactwasintheknowledgeofthe accusedthatitwasonlyHTLwhichwasnotsupplyingthecable againstdeferredpaymentwhileothervendorsweresupplyingit.It may be argued that when the accused recorded the aforesaid note in the file he was not in the position to know the supply positionasdepictedbyMrs.AnitaSoni(PW3)becausethenote recordedbytheaccusedprecededthenoteofMrs.Soni. This argumentmaynotbetenableinviewofthenotedated08.12.95, Ex.PW2/D9 (page 5/N of D4) recorded by Sh.R P Hans, whereinhemadeitclearthatitwasonlyHTLwhichhadrefused
Contd....

121

tosupplythecableagainstthedeferredpaymentwhileotherfirms weresupplyingthesame.

120.Theaccusedvideaforesaidorderdated28.02.96(Ex.PW2/6) (page11/NofD4)askedthedepartmenttosubmitthedetailed distribution of this quantity before him within a week. In compliance of the said order the department prepared and submittedfirmwisedetaileddistributionchart,Ex.PW4/2(placed atpage24/CofD4). Theparametersadoptedatthetimeof preparationofdistributionofthequantityoftheremainingcables tothevariousfirmshavebeenmentionedbySh.VKArya(PW4) inhisnotedated21.03.96,Ex.PW4/1(placedat13/Nto15/Nof D4). In view of those parameters the share for allocation of cable to HTL was worked out to 5.61 LCKM. In the note, Ex.PW4/1whilementioningthesharetobeallottedtovarious vendors including HTL, Sh.V K Arya, Director (MMS) (PW4)

Contd....

122

pointedoutthatsupplypositionofthecompanyuptoFebruary, 1996 was only 59.39% and it had not supplied the cables to variousTelecomCirclesondeferredpaymentbasisdespitethe factthatthevendor(HTL)hadexecutedtheagreementsforthe sameintheyear1995.Inviewofthis,hesuggestedthatnofresh order on this company be placed till they execute the existing orders. Itwasalsomentionedinthesaidnotethatsimilarlythe performance in the case of HCL and TTL was 55.53% and 67.22%respectively.Forreadyreference,therelevantportionof thesaidnoteisreproducedhereunder: 6. It is further added that in case of M/s HTL the performanceuptoFebruary,1996is59.39%andorders placed on the company by the circles on deferred payment basis have not beenexecuted sofar although theagreementsweresignedduringtheyear1995.Thus, itmaybeseenthatthecompanyhasbackedoutfromthe commitmentmadetoDOTtosupplythecableunderthe deferred payment scheme. Therefore, it may be consideredwhetherweshouldplacefreshordersonM/s HTLortilltheyexecutetheexistingorders. Similarly, the performance in the case of M/s HCL and
Contd....

123

TTLis55.53%and67.22%respectively. Thereisabig backlog of approx.18.20 LCKMof cables with HCL and 1.97LCKMofTTLason29.02.96.

121.ThisnotewasapprovedbyDDG(MMII)Sh.RPHans,videhis signature,Ex.PW4/4,Member(P),Mr.PKhanvidehissignature, Ex.PW4/5 and by Member (Finance) vide his signature Ex.PW4/6.

122.ThisaspectwasexaminedbySh.ASBhola,Director(Finance) (PW13),anofficerofsamerank. Healsorecordedthenoteto thesameeffect. Healsosuggestedinhisnotedated02.04.96, Ex.PW5/D5 (placed in D4 at page 17/N) the firms whose supplypositionisreportednottobegoode.g.M/sHTL,TTL& Deltonetc.theordersmaybeplacedonthemonlyafterexecution oftheexistingordersinhand. Agreeingwiththesuggestions Chairman,TelecomCommissionmarkedthefiletoMOS(C).

Contd....

124

123.Theaccusedagreedwiththeabovementionedobservationthat theperformanceofsomeofthefirms,namely,M/sDeltron,M/s HCL,M/sHTL,M/sTTLhadnotbeensatisfactoryandhehad takencognizanceoftheproposalmadebysubordinateofficersto deferplacingofordertilltheexistingorderswerenotexecuted, stillheorderedtoplacefreshorders.Thereasongivenbyhimfor freshorderswasthattheplacementoftheorderwillaffectthe timelysupplyi.ebeforetheonsetofmonsoon.Therelevantpart oftheorderdated08.05.96recordedbytheaccusedinthefileat page18/N(D4)whichisEx.PW2/7isreproducedhereunder: Ihavegonethroughtheproposalintheprecedingnotes andthedistributionproposedtherein. Itisobservedthat the performance of some of the firms, namely, M/s Deltron, M/s HCL, M/s HTL, M/s TTL as mentioned in pages1415/Nand17/Nhasnotbeensatisfactory.Ithas beenproposedtodeferplacingoforderonthemtillthey executetheexistingordersinhandintime. Theproposaltodefertheplacementoforderwillaffectthe timelysupplyofthisimportantitemintimei.ebeforethe
Contd....

125

onsetofmonsoon. Itwill,however,beinthefitnessof thingstoorderonlythatquantityonthesefirmswhichthey arecapableofsupplyingthecableduringthisperiodand the balance quantity be ordered straight away on the supplierswhohavegotsufficientcapacityandhavegood trackrecord.ThiswillhelptheDOTtogettimelysupplyof thematerial. Inthelightofwhathasbeenstatedabove,thedistribution of the quantity to the following firms made as given againsteach. Deltron Finolex CTC HCL HTL RPG SIIL TTL UBL 1.00 9.85 10.20 4.00 4.00 6.77 13.57 1.00 10.92

Thedistributiontotheremainingfirmsmentionedinpage 14/Nisapprovedasproposed.

Contd....

126

124.As is apparent from this order dated 08.05.96, Ex.PW2/7 passedbytheaccused,theonlyreasonassignedfornotagreeing withthesuggestionofsubordinateofficersincludingtheChairman of Telecom Commission was such that an ordinary prudent person would have never passed it. According to him if the proposaltodefertheplacementoforderwasaccepted,itwould haveaffectedthetimelysupplyofthisitemintimei.ebeforethe onset of monsoon. It is very difficult to comprehend that with suchapoortrackrecordofthesupply(only59%supplyofthe orders placed) HTL could have supplied the backlog and additionalorderofsupplyof4LCKMwithinaperiodofabouttwo months(theorderwaspassedon08.05.96andthetimeofonset ofmonsoonisnotlaterthanlastweekofJuneorfirstweekof July).Thus,thereasongivenbytheaccusedtopassthisorder wasdevoidofanylogic.

Contd....

127

125.While discussing as to how the accused caused undue pecuniary advantage to HTL, it would be proper to see the difference between the recommended quantity and ordered quantitybytheMinister,differencebetweenthetwoandsupply percentageoftheabovevendorsinatabularform:

Name of %ageofsupply Recommended theFirm ason29.02.96 bytheDeptt.

Recommended by Difference theMinister

% age of what was recommended by the department and recommended by theMinister 48.08 105.35 124.39 35 71.30 106.28 158.34 43.10 137.88

Delton Finolex GTC HCL HTL RPG SIIL TTL UBL

67.71 85.98 85.37 55.53 59.39 77.81 91.76 67.22 80.65

2.08 9.35 8.20 11.43 5.61 6.37 8.57 2.35 7.92

1.00 9.85 10.20 4.00 4.00 6.77 13.57 1.00 10.92

01.08 +0.50 02.00 07.43 01.61 +0.40 +0.500 01.35 +3.00

126.ThechartEx.PW4/2andtheabovetabularchartpartlybased onEx.PW4/2wouldshowthatthelowestsupplywasthatofHCL whichwas55.53%.SinceHCLisaPublicSectorUndertakingin

Contd....

128

whichnopersonalinterest,likeotherprivatefirms,wasinvolved, therefore,itwouldnotbedesirabletoconsideritatparwithother firms. Hence,thesupplypositionofHTLmaybeconsideredto be lowest. The performance of even TTL and Delton, whose supplypositionwasshownasunsatisfactory,wasmorethan67% still they got only 43.10% and 48.08% of the quantity recommendedbythedepartmentduetoorderoftheaccused, while HTL could manage to get 71.30% of the recommended quantitydespitethepoorsupplypositionofonly59.39.Fromthe perusal of note dated 08.05.96, Ex.PW2/7 recorded by the accusednoreasondirectlyorbynecessaryimplicationcanbe inferredforthisunduepreferentialindulgencebytheaccusedin favourofHTL. Theonlypossiblereasonthatcanbeinferredis that such a quantity was allocated in order to cause undue pecuniaryadvantagetohiscoaccused/DSChoudhary,whowas ChairmanofHTL.

Contd....

129

127.Ithas beenarguedbyld.defencecounsel thataccused/Sukh Ram,insteadofincreasingthequantity,has,infact,decreased the quantity from what was recommended by the department. Thus,accordingtohimthesaidorderwastothedisadvantageof his coaccused, otherwise his firm (HTL) would have got 5.61 LCKM cable as recommended by the department. But this argumentistotallymisleading.Itisinappropriatetoconcludethat the department had recommended allocation of 5.61 LCKM to HTL.Thewholisticreadingofthenotewouldresulttoconclusion thataquestionmarkwasputastowhetheranyordershouldatall beplaceduponHTLdespiteitsentitlementfor5.61LCKMinview ofitsprecarioussupplyposition. Fromtheevidencewhichhas emerged out in this case, it appears that the coaccused/D S Choudharywasdictatingtheterms.Asdiscussedabove,HTLdid notsupplyevenaniotaofthecableswhichwasallocatedtoit

Contd....

130

under the deferred payment scheme while other vendors had suppliedtheirallocatedquantityunderthisscheme. Infactthis vendor(HTL)didnotdeservefortheallocationofanyquantityof cable.

128.Fromtheorder,onecannotunderstandastowhatformulawas adopted by the accused while allocating different quantities to variousvendorsandwhatwasthereasonfordisagreeingwiththe quantitiessuggestedbythedepartment. Asalreadydiscussed thatthejoboftheMinisterwastotakethepolicydecisionandits implementationwaspartofthedepartment. Butbypassingthe order dated 16.07.93, Ex.PW10/D10 (D53), the accused as Minister of State (Communication), created an opportunity to indulgeincorruptionandtoextendunduefavourtotheparties with oblique motive. From this the only inference that can be drawn is that he transgressed the jurisdiction and the order

Contd....

131

passedbytheaccusedon08.05.96(Ex.PW2/7atpage18/Non D4)wasamotivatedone.Itwaspassedwiththesoleintention tocauseunduepecuniaryadvantagetoHTL.

129.Ithasbeenarguedbytheld.counselfortheaccusedthatthe accused,inthecapacityofMinister,wascompetenttopasssuch orders as the order to increase the allocation was a policy decision.Bynostretchofimagination,itcanbesaidtobeapolicy decision.Thatwaswhytheaccuseddidnottakethisstandinhis statementu/s313Cr.PC.Inreplytoquestionno.174Haveyou anythingelsetosay?,herepliedIactedonandwiththeaid andadviseoftheofficialsofmydepartmentandnottaking decisiononmyown.Thisordershowsthatitwasnotpassed ontheadviceofhisofficialsofhisdepartment.Onthecontrary, he passed the said order overruling the suggestions of his officialstocausepecuniaryadvantagetohiscoaccused.Ifthis

Contd....

132

order,inhisview,wasapolicydecision,hewouldhavedefinitely stateditinhisstatementu/s313Cr.PC.

130.Ithasalsobeenarguedbytheld.defencecounselthatMMCell had proposed the allocation of 5.61 LCKM to HTL but the accused allocated only 4 LCKM and had the accused not allocatedthisquantitytothisvendor,theDOTwouldhavebeenin troubleandwouldhaveinvitedseriesoflitigation,therefore,no fault can be found in the order dated 08.05.96 (Ex.PW2/7) passedbytheaccused.Itisarguedthattheallocationof4LCKM to the HTL virtually saved the department from unnecessary litigationandassuch,SukhRamasMinisterdidnotabusehis officialpositiontocauseunduepecuniaryadvantagetohimselfor tohiscoaccused/DSChoudhary.Hisargumentisbasedonthe note(Ex.PW4/D15,placedatpage19/Nofthenotesheetin D4)recordedbySh.ASBhola(PW15),Director(FAV)dated

Contd....

133

15.05.96. To appreciate this aspect in proper perspective, it wouldbepropertohavealookofthesaidnote. Thesameis reproducedhereunder: Hon'bleMOS(C)hasapprovedtheproposalforplacing ordersforjellyfilledcablesforwhichthereisshortagein the department now. Some changes have been suggestedintheparawiseallocationthatwasproposedin page14/Nbasedontheperformanceoftheorderinthe originaltenderinrespecttothe4suppliers,namely,M/s Delton, HCL, HTL and TTL. Some quantity reductions havebeensuggestedoverwhathasbeenrecommended bytheTEC.Buttheorderedreductionisinviolationofthe terms and conditions of NIT. Some representation are reported to have been received in this context and the latestonefromtheHTLisplacedat26/C(Flagged'A')in LF. This reductioncangiverisetolitigationcasesand thusjeopardizeourexpansionprogramme. It is suggested that orders may be placed for the quantitiesthathavebeenapprovedonprepageincluding the quantities reduced i.e. 10 LCKM in respect of four suppliersmentioned.

131.The ld.Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the said argumentoftheld.counselfortheaccusedisnottenablebecause

Contd....

134

theaccusedhadnotentertainedanysuchfearinhismindwhen heallocated4LCKMtoM/sHTLandthehasteshownbythe accusedinallocatingthesaidquantitywithoutinsistingtothesaid vendor to execute the pending orders, itself shows his guilty intention.Thereasonasspeltoutfromthisallocationinhisnote Ex.PW2/7 is flimsy. These lead us to one and the only one inference that he abused his office as public servant to cause unduepecuniaryadvantagetohimselfand/orhiscoaccused/DS Choudhary.

132.The ld.Special Public Prosecutor has further argued that the witnessesS/Sh.VKAryaandASBholahadneversuggested thatnoordersbeplacedonthefirmswhichwerelaggingbehind inthesupplyofthecablewhichwasalreadyorderedonthem. Theyhadsuggestedonlytodefertheplacementoffreshorders tilltheyexecutedtheexistingorders.Theyneversuggestedthat

Contd....

135

nofreshorderbeplacedonthisvendor(HTL).Thepossibilityof litigationwouldhavearisenonly,assumingthelogicgivenbythis witness in his Ex.PW4/D15 as a correct one, if they had suggestedthatnofreshorderbeplacedonthisvendororany othervendor.Sh.VKAryainhisnotedated31.03.96,Ex.PW4/1 brought out to the notice of the accused, in clear terms, the adamantattitudeofthisvendor.Insuchcircumstancesnobuyer wouldeverliketoplacefreshorderforadditionalquantityofthe material when it (Vendor) had not been able to execute the previousorders.He,inthesaidnoteEx.PW4/1,mentionedthat itisfurtheraddedthatincaseofM/sHTL,theperformanceupto February,1996is59.39%andordersplacedonthecompanyby thecirclesondeferredpaymentbasishavenotbeenexecutedso faralthoughtheagreementsweresignedduringtheyear1995. Thus,itmaybeseenthatthecompanyhadbackedoutfromthe commitmentmadetoDOTtosupplythecablesunderdeferred

Contd....

136

paymentscheme. Therefore,itmaybeconsideredwhetherwe should place fresh orders on HTL or not till they execute the existingorders.SimilaristhesuggestionmadebySh.ASBhola in his note dated 01.04.96, Ex.PW5/D1. In such a situation questionoflitigationwouldhaveneverarisen.

133.Theld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasalsosubmittedthatifthis issueisexaminedslightdeeply,wewouldfindthatfearorterror wasthecreationofSh.ASBholawho,obviously,wastoomuch influenced by letter dated 10.05.96addressed by M/s Haryana TelecomLimitedtotheMember(Finance),DOT,NewDelhi(the letterisplacedatpage26/CofD4,anadmitteddocument). Thiswitnessproceededonafalseassumptionthattheremaining quantityof111.40LCKM,whichwastobeallocated,wasthepart of the quantity of present Tender Enquiry No.1421/94MMT (MMS)whichwasfloatedfortwoyearsi.e.199596and199697.

Contd....

137

Thatwaswhyhe,onpage16/N(lastfourlines)ofEx.PW5/D1 (D4), mentioned that the tendered cable for two years requirementhavetobeutilizedduringtheperiod199596only. thisaspecthasbeendiscussedaboveindetail.Sufficeistosay that it was never decided at any level that the whole of the tenderedquantitymeantfortwoyearswastobeutilizedtomeet therequirementfortheyear199596only. Sincetheaforesaid quantitywasnotapartofthesaidtender,therefore,itstermsand conditionwerenotbinding.Hence,therewasnoquestionofany litigation.

134.Thepreliminaryobjectiontakenbytheld.counselfordefence thatthecourtwasnotcompetenttoframethechargeandtotry thisallegation,asitdoesnotfindmentioninthesanctionorder, has already been dealt with in detail by me earlier while discussingthevalidityofsanctionandfoundnottenable.

Contd....

138

RECOVERYOFRs.3LACSANDTHEVISITINGCARDOFTHE COACCUSED/D S CHOUDHARY KEPT IN ENVELOPE DURINGTHESEARCHOFTHEHOUSEOFACCUSED/SUKH RAMATMANDI,ON16AUGUST,1996 135.ItistheprosecutioncasethattheCBIhadregisteredacase RC3(A)/96initsACIIVbranch,Delhi. Sh.BSJhakerwasthe InvestingOfficerofthatcase.On13.08.96,heinconnectionwith theinvestigationofthatcase,obtainedasearchwarrantfromthe courtofSh.DineshDayal,thethenld.SpecialJudge,Delhiforthe search of the house of accused/Sukh Ram located at Mohalla ShyamkhetarinMandi(HimachalPradesh).Thesearchwarrant wasendorsedby Sh.JhakarinfavourofSh.BNJha,thethen Dy.SP,CBI,ACIIV,Delhiforexecution. On13.08.96,itself,at thetimewhenthesearchwarrantwasendorsedtoSh.BNJhafor execution,hewasdirectedtoexecutethesameon16.08.96only, atMandi.On13.08.96,Mr.BNJhaleftDelhiforMandialongwith his subordinate staff and reached Mandi on 14.08.96 in the
th

Contd....

139

morning. Sh.K L Meena, Superintendent, CBI, ACIIV also reachedMandion15.08.96tosupervisethesearch.

136.On 14.08.96, Sh.Jha, after reaching Mandi arranged the services of two witnesses from State Bank of India, Mandi to witnessthehousesearchofaccusedatManditobeconducted on 16.08.96. He also arranged one more witness from State BankofPatiala,Mandiforthesamepurpose. Mr.BNJhahad askedtheirseniorofficerstodirectthem(witnesses)toreachat 6.30a.mon16.08.96atElectricityBoardGuestHouse,Mandi where he was staying with his staff. On the same day i.e 14.08.96,hemadeadiscreetenquiryaboutthehouse,tosatisfy himselfthatthehousewhichwastobesearched,belongedto accused/SukhRam. InaccordancewiththerequestbySh.BN Jhatodeputetwowitnesses,theChiefManagerofStateBankof India, Mandi detailed S/Sh.K L Goel and Harish Kapoor, both

Contd....

140

Asstt.ManagersofStateBankofIndia,Mandiandaskedthemto reporttoSh.BNJhaatthesaidGuestHouse,on16.08.96at 06.30a.m.Similarly,athirdwitnessMr.DografromStateBankof Patiala, Mandi who was detailed for the said purpose also reachedthere.

137.As per decided programme, the raiding party comprising of Sh.BNJha,Sh.KLMeenaalongwithsubordinatestaffandthe aforesaidwitnessesreachedatthehouseofaccused/SukhRam, on16.08.96at07.00a.m.Neitheraccused/SukhRamnoranyof hisfamilymemberswerepresentthereatthattime.Atthattime only Sh.Bir Singh, Caretaker of the house and Ram Pal, PSO werepresentinthehouse. Thesearchwarrantwasshownto them and after apprising them that house search was to be conducted, the raiding party started the house search. CBI startedthehousesearchfrom07.00a.m.andcouldcompleteit

Contd....

141

lateintheeveningbyabout10.30p.m.Duringsearchhugecash startedbeingrecovered,therefore,CBIinformedtheIncomeTax Authoritiesforactionontheirpart.Onreceiptoftheinformation about it, the Director (Investigation), Income Tax, directed Sh.SunilDutt,Asstt.Director(Investigation),IncomeTax,Shimla to reach at the house of accused/Sukh Ram, former Union MinisteratMandiwhereCBIsearchwasbeingcarriedonand hugecashwasbeingrecovered.Hewasalsodirectedtotakethe action under Income Tax Act. Sh.Sunil Dutt along with his subordinatestaffreachedatthehouseofaccusedatabout04.30 p.mwhensearchesbytheCBIwasinprogress.

138.DuringthecourseofhousesearchCBI,inthepresenceofthe witnessesvizS/Sh.KKGoelandHarishKapoor,recoveredhuge cash contained in various suitcases, bags and boxes. From suitcaseno.10,besidesothercash,anenvelopecontaining600

Contd....

142

newGCNotesofRs.500/denominationandonevisitingcardof Devinder Singh, President, PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry,ChairmanIndustrial CablesIndiaLtd.,FlatNo.4452
nd

Floor Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash, New Delhi was found.AtotalamountofRs.1,16,51,520/incashwasrecovered byCBIonthatdayfromthesaidhousesearch.Onthespot,on thatdaya 'searchcumseizurelist' abouttherecoveryofthe cashwaspreparedinthepresenceofthosetwowitnesses.On page14againstsl.no.344ofthesaidlistanendorsementgiving outthedetailsabouttherecoveryofthatenvelopeandvisiting cardwasmadeattimewhenthesaidlistwasprepared.

139.Aftertherecoveryofthesaidcashamount,Sh.BNJha,vide letterdated16.08.96requestedSh.SunilDutttotakepossession of the entire cash amount and the said seizure memo and requested him to initiate appropriate legal action under the

Contd....

143

IncomeTaxAct.Sh.SunilDuttacknowledgedthesaidletterand theseizurememo. However,physical possession ofthe cash wasnottaken. Sh.BNJhakepttheentirecashon16.08.96in thenightinthestrongroomofStateBankofIndia,MainBranch, Mandi. Onthenextdayi.e.17.08.96,Sh.SunilDuttseizedand took the possession of the entire cash under Section 132A of Indian Income Tax Act from CBI. A separate list of the cash received from CBI was prepared by Income Tax Officials, on 17.08.96.AfterreceiptoftheentirecashfromCBI,Sh.SunilDutt, on17.08.96,gotabankdraftforentireamountpreparedinthe name of Personal Deposit Account, Commissioner of Income Tax,Patialafromthesaidbank.

140.Since,duringinvestigation,therecoveryofRs.3lacsalongwith avisitingcardinanenvelopewasfoundconnectedandrelevant withthiscase,itwastakenasapartoftheinstantcase.

Contd....

144

141.In order to prove its case in respect to this aspect, the prosecution has examined S/Sh.Sunil Dutt (PW22); Harish Kapoor(PW23);KKGoel(PW24)andSh.BNJha(PW25). Outofthesefourwitnesses,twowitnesses,namely,Sh.Harish KapoorandSh.KKGoeldidnotsupporttheprosecutioncase, therefore,theyweredeclaredhostileandwerecrossexamined bytheprosecution. TheothertwowitnessesSh.SunilDuttand Sh.BNJhasupportedtheprosecutioncase.

142.Theaccused,abouttherecoveryofthecashandcardputhis defence during crossexamination of Sh.B N Jha. It was suggestedtohimthatthecashrecoveredfromthefirstfloorof (SukhRam's)housewaskeptandonlymeantforJ&Kelection andwasunderthecareandcustodyofoneTirathRamanditdid notbelongtoSukhRam. However,accused/SukhRam,when

Contd....

145

examinedu/s313Cr.PC,didnotstatethisfact.Heinreplytoall thequestionspertainingtothisrecoverystatedu/s313Cr.PCthat there is nothing against me which invites my explanation. However,Iwasoutofcountryformedicaltreatment.

143.Accused/Sukh Ram examined Sh.Tirath Ram (DW2) to substantiatehisdefence.Hehasstatedinhisstatementthatin September,1996AssemblyelectionforJ&KStatewereheld.For theAssemblyelectionhewasmadecampinchargeatMandiby S/Sh.SitaRamKesri,cashierandBPMaurya,GeneralSecretary ofCognress(I)Party.Sh.Kesriinformedhimthathehadtalked toPt.SukhRamandtherefore,hecouldopencampofficeinhis (Sukh Ram's) house located in Samkhetra, Mandi. He was informedontelephonebyS/Sh.SitaRamKesriandBPMaurya thatelectionfundandelectionmaterialwouldbetransmittedto himandheshouldreceiveit.On09.08.96,atabout11/11.30in

Contd....

146

the night he received the cash amounting to Rs.1,25,00,000/ from Chandan Sharma in 12 briefcases/suitcases. Election materiallikepamphlets,flagsandposterswerealsoreceived.On the next day he counted the cash and found that it was Rs. 1,25,00,000/. This counting process was completed by him within34hours. Hehadspentsomeofthemoneyoutofthat amountby16.08.96.Itwason16.08.96thatwhenhewasgoing tothecampofficeatbusstand,helearntabouttheraidbeing conducted at the house of Pt.Sukh Ram by CBI. When he reachedthecampofficehewasnotallowedtoenterthehouseby CBIofficials.Thereuponhe,ontelephone,broughtallthefactsto theknowledgeofSh.BPMauryaatDelhi,thesamedaybuthe askedhimtomeethigherofficerofCBIpresentatMandi.Onthe nextdayi.e.17.08.96,hemetSPandnarratedallthefactswho toldhimthathewouldseethematterlateron.Onthatdayitself thewitnesstalkedtoS/Sh.KesriandMauryawhosaidthatsince

Contd....

147

theyweregoingoutofcity,therefore,heshouldmeethimafter 67days. On23.08.96,hereachedDelhiandnarratedallthe factstothem.

144.On the basis of the evidence adduced by prosecution and defence, it has been argued by the prosecution that the facts relatingtothesearchofthehouseoftheaccusedon16.08.96by theCBIpersonnelandrecoveryofthehugeamountsfromthe bags and suitcases from the house of the accused are not disputed. Whatisdisputedistherecoveryof600GCNotesof denominationofRs.500/eachandthevisitingcardinthename ofDevinderSinghkeptintheenvelope,fromsuitcaseno.10.It hasbeensuggestedtoPW25/BNJhainhiscrossexamination (dated16.10.04)bythecounselforaccused/SukhRamthatno envelopeorvisitingcardasallegedbythewitnesswasrecovered fromthehousesearchofaccused.Ithasalsobeendisputedthat

Contd....

148

thecashrecoveredfromhouseofaccusedbelongedtohimand thatinfactitwasoftheCongressPartyfundthatwasgivento Sh.TirathRam(DW2)forspendingintheLegislativeAssembly electionsofJ&Kwhichwerescheduledtobeheldinthemonthof September, 1996. Ld.Special Public Prosecutor argued that, curiouslyenough,boththesefactswhichweresuggestedtothe witness,werenotstatedbytheaccusedinhisstatementu/s313 Cr.PC. In that statement the accused has shown complete ignorance about the house search (Q.Nos.133 to 141). Since counsel for the accused/Sukh Ram during his arguments has madeextensiveuseofthecrossexaminationdoneonbehalfof hiscoaccused/DSChoudhary,therefore,itwouldbepertinentto mentionthatduringcrossexaminationoftherecoverywitnesses hiscounselmadenosuggestionthatthevisitingcard,MarkX1 didnotbelongtohim.

Contd....

149

145.Ithasbeenarguedbytheprosecutionthatthedefencesetup byaccused/SukhRaminthecrossexaminationofSh.BNJha (PW25)andintheevidenceofthedefencewitnessisabsolutely afalseone.Theld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhascontendedthat theaccused/SukhRam,inordertoexplaintherecoveryofsucha huge cash, has introduced a highly motivated and a got up witnessviz.Sh.TirathRamandthathisevidenceissomuchfull of improbabilities that no prudent person can believe his statement.Theld.SpecialPublicProsecutorenumeratedcertain pointstosubmitandconvincethecourtthatthetestimonyofthis witness can not be believed and that it is an afterthought defence: 1.Thiswitnesswasexaminedinthiscaseon30.08.08; 16.09.08and17.09.08forhisevidence.Nosummonwas issuedtothiswitnessforhisappearanceinthecourtfor 30.08.08. In this regard when crossexamined by the prosecution,thewitnessevadedthequestionandreplied that he did not recollect that he had received the summonsfromthecourtforhisappearancefor30.08.08. Thisevasivereplywouldmeanthatheappearedinthe
Contd....

150

court for his evidence on his own on the asking of the accused.He(witness)didnotclaimtheexpensesforhis attendanceinthecourtespeciallywhenhewasresidentof DistrictMandi(HP)afaroffplacefromDelhi.Hetriedto explainitthatexpensesareclaimedaftertheconclusion of the evidence. This explanation could have been acceptedbutforthereasonthathehadappearedinthe courtofSh.VKMaheshwari,Ld.SpecialJudge,Delhiasa defencewitnessonbehalfoftheaccusedinanothercase on28.03.08&29.05.08andhisevidenceconcludedon 01.09.08buthebyhisownadmissiondidnotclaimany expensesfromthatcourt.Itshowsthathowmuchhewas interestedandmotivatedwitness. 2.Asperhisstatementhewasmadeinchargeofelection campinMandifortheLegislativeAssemblyelectionfor J&K State by Sh.B P Maurya, General Secretary of Congress (I) party and ElectioninCharge for Himachal PradeshandSh.SitaRamKesri,cashierofthesaidparty. SurprisinglynoneofthenwasinchargeofJ&Kwherethe electionsweretobeheld.Itisdifficulttocomprehendthat thepartyofficebearerswhohadnothingtodowithJ&K State were competent to appoint incharge of election campforelectionstobeheldinJ&KState. 3. The Assembly elections were to be held at J&K but surprisingly election camp was established at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh which was at a distance of 200250 Kms from Jammu. Generally, election camp is established within the State where elections are to be held. Noreasonisforthcomingfromthewitnesswhich necessitatedtheCongressPartytoestablishitselection
Contd....

151

campinadifferentStatethattooatsuchalongdistance. 4.Asperstatementofthiswitnesson09.08.96,hehad received cash and the election material i.e. Election pamphlets,flagsandpostersmeantforJ&Kelections.He hasalsostatedthatworkersofthepartyusedtovisitthe camp office and they were instructed to go for election campaign along with the material. In his cross examination, the witness has stated that workers were from Mandi, Kullu, Bilaspur, Hamirpur, Kangra and Chambadistrictstowhom,theelectionmaterialmeantfor J&Kwassupplied. Hehasfurtherstatedthatallthese districtsareinStateofHimachalPradeshandnotinJ&K State.Itismostsurprisingthattheelectionsweretobe heldinJ&Kbuttheelectionmaterialwascollectedbythe partyworkersfromtheStateofHimachalPradesh. No prudentpersoncanbelievehisstatement.Itexposesthe falsityofhisstatement. 5.Thiswitnessinhisexaminationinchiefhasstatedthat on09.08.96inthenightatabout11/11.30,hereceived12 briefcases/suitcasesfromChandanSharmaofBombay. OnthesamedaySh.SitaRamKesriandSh.BPMaurya gaveatelephonecallfromDelhiandtoldthewitnessthat electionfundandmaterialwerebeingsentandheshould receive it. He also stated that at that time when Sh.Chandan Sharma handed over thefund, he toldthe witnessthatanamountofRs.1,25,00,000/wasinthose suitcases and briefcases. Next day in the morning he countedthesaidamountandittookabout3to4hoursin countingit.Noonecanbelievethatsuchahugecashin thedenominationof1000;500;100;50;20;10&5rupees
Contd....

152

couldbecountedbyonepersonwithinsuchashortperiod while the CBI raiding party comprising of so many CBI personnelandbankofficialstookwholedayincountingit. 6.Noonecanbelievethatonecanhandoversuchahuge amounttoapersonwithoutanyreceipt.DWTirathRam inhiscrossexaminationhasadmittedthatnoreceiptwas obtainedbyChandanSharmaforthemoneyentrustedto him especially when the said amount did not belong to him.It,asperhisversion,waspartymoney,therefore,no person can afford to hand over this much of amount without any receipt. His acquaintance with the witness wasnotofsuchahighdegreethatnoreceiptwouldbe obtained. He stated that his acquaintance with the said Chandan Sharma was only for the reason that he had attended Youth Congress meetings in Delhi so many times. 7.Thewitnesshasstatedthatit(cash)wasthepartyfund. During the crossexamination of this witness a CD was playedinthecourtbeforehim.InthesaidCDwhenitwas played, Sh.Sita Ram Kesri was seen saying that Sukh Ramwantstothrowblameofhisvicesontheheadofthe party. InthesameCDSh.BPMauryawasseensaying Hosaktayehrupiyakisikidharoharrakhaho.....Ho sakta hai ye party ka rupiya ho.....Ho sakta hai ye bhrastacharkarupiyaho.....Kuchabhitokahanahiija saktana....Hosaktahaikipartyfundmeaayahoaur vobimarikeliyechalegayeaurvoadjustmentnahi hopaya. Thispieceofevidencegivesadeathblowto thestatementofthiswitnessthatitwasapartyfundand was sent by S/Sh.Sita Ram Kesri and B P Maurya for
Contd....

153

electionexpenditure. 8. As per the statement of this witness on the day of search he was present in Mandi and learnt about the housesearchbeingconductedbyCBI.Atabout67p.m onthesamedayhelearntthatCBIhadtakenawaythe aforesaidcash. Despitethishedidnottakeanystepto informlocalpolice.Hedidnotreportaboutthisincidentto the Superintendent of Police, Mandi. He only informed Sh.B P Maurya and Sh.Sita Ram Kesri about it who instructed him not to talk about that money anywhere sincethatmoneywasofpartyfund.Heevendidnotmeet SP,CBIwhowaspresentinMandionthatdayandwent tohishouse. Onthenextdayi.e17.08.96,thewitness talkedtobothS/Sh.SitaRamKesriandBPMauryaabout itandtheytoldonlythismuchthatsincetheyweregoing outofDelhiheshouldmeetthemafter67days.Ifitwas the party money, Sh.Sita Ram Kesri and/or Sh.B P Mauryawouldhavetakenimmediatestepstolodgethe protestthatthecashrecoveredfromthehouseofSukh RambelongedtothepartyandSukhRamhadnothingto dowithit.Thisunusualconductonthepartofthiswitness cannotbeignored. Ifitwasapartymoneythattooof Congresswhichwasanationalparty,itwouldhavetaken allthenecessarystepsatallthelevelstogetthemoney retrieved.Onthesamedaythepartywouldhaveissued the statement in media and would have claimed the ownershipofthatmoney.Inactionandindifferenceonthe party of Congress Party in claiming the said money is indicativeofonlyonefactthatthesaidcashdidnotbelong tothepartyanditwasnotdeliveredtothewitnessonthat dayforelectionpurposes.
Contd....

154

9.ThiswitnesshasstatedthathewascalledtoDelhiin the last week of July, 1996 and was made camp in charge. HewastoldbySh.SitaRamKesrithathehad talked to Pt.Sukh Ram and he would open a camp at MandiinthehouseofPt.SukhRamlocatedinSamkhetra Mandi.Ifitwasafact,accusedSukhRamwouldhave definitelystatedinhisstatementu/s313Cr.PC.

146.Theaforesaidfactsandotherfactswhichhavecomeoutinthe crossexamination of DWTirath Ram lead to an irresistible conclusionthatitwasnotapartymoneyanditwasnotgivento Sh.TirathRamforthepurposeasclaimedbyhim.

147.Sincethecashwasrecoveredfromthehouseoftheaccused, theburdenhadshiftedtohimtoproveastowhomdidit(cash) belongifitdidnotbelongtohim. Onthispointhehasfailed miserably.

148.It has been argued by the ld.counsel for the defence that
Contd....

155

Sh.SunilDutt(PW22)on16.08.96hadnoopportunitytoseethe recoveryofRs.3lacsandthevisitingcardofthecoaccused/DS Choudhary(sinceexpired)fromanenvelopekeptinsuitcaseno. 10.He,inordertostrengthenhisargument,hascontendedthat thiswitnesshasnotstatedthisfactinhisstatementrecordedu/s 161 Cr.PC and the witness has improved his version in this regardtostrengthentheprosecutioncase. Theargumentdoes notcarryanyforce. Thiswitnesshasdeposedthathereached the house of accused/Sukh Ram in Mandi at about 04.30 p.m whenthecountingofcashwasgoingon.Assuchthepossibility ofthewitnessseeingthesaidrecoveryofcashandvisitingcard, keptinanenvelopefromsuitcaseno.10,cannotberuledout. Thewitnessinreplytoacourtquestionstatedthathehadseen thevisitingcardlyingintheenvelopeinwhichthecurrencynotes hadbeenkept.Toappreciatethisissue,itwouldbepropertore producetherelevantportionofhisstatementmadeinthecourt.

Contd....

156

BeforethatitmaybeclarifiedthatEx.PW22/1istheinventory whichwaspreparedon16.08.96byCBIandEx.PW22/2isthe inventory which was prepared by Income Tax officials on 17.08.95. The reply was given by the witness after seeing Ex.PW21/1andnotEx.PW21/2.Itmeanshewasreferringtothe incidentof16.08.96thatwhenEx.PW22/1waspreparedthesaid cardandcashofRs.3lacswasrecovered.Therelevantportion ofsaidstatement(atpage3to5ofexaminationinchief)isre producedbelow: AftercompletingthesearchCBIofficialshandedovera forwardinglettertomealongwithinventory ofthecash seizedbythem......Thesearchcumseizurelistwhichwas annexedtotheoriginalforwardingletterhasbeenbrought by me and is annexed to the original forwarding letter Ex.PW22/1(20pages)isthecarboncopyofthememo which was annexed to the forwarding letter....I have broughtthecarboncopyoftheinventorypreparedbyus on17.08.96andthesameisEx.PW22/2(20pages).....In thesuitcaseno.10atsl.no.306,600currencynotesinthe denominationofRs.500/totalingRs.3lac(newcurrency) alongwithonevisitingcardofDevinderSingh,President, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chairman nd Industrial Cables India, Ltd., Flat no.445, 2 Floor
Contd....

157

Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash, New Delhi were foundintheenvelope(thewitnesshasgiventhisdetail readingfromEx.PW22/2). CQHad you seen visiting card referred in the memo, Ex.PW22/1? Ans.Yes. CQWherethecardwasatthattime? Ans.Thevisitingcardwaslyingintheenvelopeinwhich thecurrencynoteshadbeenkept.

149.Sincethewitnesshasstatedtheaforesaidfactinanswertothe questions put by the court, therefore, there is no merit in the contentionoftheld.counselforthedefencethatthewitnesshad notstatedthisfactinhisstatementu/s161Cr.PCandhehas addedthisfactinordertofastenafalsecaseontheaccused. Therefore,Ifailtoagreewiththereasoningoftheld.counselfor defence.

Contd....

158

150.Ithasalsobeensubmittedbytheld.counselfordefencethat perusal of the entry and endorsement against sl.no.344 in the inventory,Ex.PW22/1wouldshowthatcashofRs.3lacswasnot recoveredfromtheenvelopeinwhichthevisitingcardwaskept. He has submitted that there is no mention in the said endorsementthatboththecashandvisitingcardwerefoundin theenvelope.Itmaybementionedthatfromsuitcaseno.10,itis notthatonlyRs.3lacsincashwererecoveredandthisisnotthe only entry which was made in respect to suitcase no.10. Followingaretheentriesrelatingtosuitcaseno.10asgiveninthe inventory,Ex.PW22/1fromwhichothercashwasalsorecovered:
Sl.No. Denomination of GCNotes/Currency 342 343 344 100X1000 100X1000 500X600 Amount(Rs.) Name of the Bank/Slip and Total date (Rs.) Amount

1,00,000.00 ANZGrindlaysBankwithout date 1,00,000.00 OBCShimla,Dt.05.10.93 3,00,000.00 NewCurrency

1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 3,00,000.00

(One visiting card of Devinder Singh,President, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chairman Industrial Cables India, Ltd., Flat no.445, 2nd Floor Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash,NewDelhifoundintheenvelope) 345 500X100 50,000.00 SBIKarnal 50,000.00

Contd....

159
346 347 500X500 500X300 2,50,000.00 Withoutslip 1,50,000.00 PSB, H Block, Con.Circus, NewDelhi Total 2,50,000.00 1,50,000.00 9,50,000.00

151.Ifthecontentionofld.counselfortheaccusedisacceptedas correct one that since it was not mentioned in the said endorsementthattheamountofRs.3lacwasalsofoundinthe envelope,thisshouldbeinferredthatthesaidcashwasnotfound in the envelope, then there was no need to make the said endorsementjustbelowthisentry.Inthatsituationthecardkept in the envelope being separate and independent item should have been mentioned in the last after the entry no.347. Moreover,therecoverywitnesseshavenotbeencrossexamined onthispointandnosuggestionwasputtothemtothateffect. The testimony of the recovery witnesses on this point goes unchallenged.

Contd....

160

152.Ifthesubmissionmadeonbehalfoftheaccusedisconsidered ascorrectthattheamountofRs.3lacswasnotrecoveredfrom theenvelopeinwhichthevisitingcardwasfoundkeptandCBIin ordertoconnectDevinderSinghwiththeaccused/SukhRamhas led false evidence that Rs.3 lacs and the visiting card were recoveredfromtheenvelopeinsuitcaseno.10thenitwouldnot havebeendifficultatallforCBItoattributetherecoveryofwhole amountofRs.9,50,000/whichwerefoundinthesuitcaseno.10. If CBI wanted to fasten the accused with a false case then it would have come up with the case that whole of the cash in suitcaseno.10wasreceivedfromDevinderSingh. Therefore,I donotagreewiththesaidcontentionoftheld.counselforthe accused.

153.Ithasbeenarguedthatthesaidenvelopewasnotevenseized byCBI.AccordingtohimRs.3lacsandthesaidenvelopebeing

Contd....

161

thecasepropertyshouldhavebeenproducedinthecourtduring trial.HisfurthercontentionisthecardMarkX1(keptinthesaid envelope) was not deposited in the CBI Malkhana along with othercaseproperty.Inviewofallthesefactshearguedthatthe recoveryofcashandvisitingcardkeptintheenvelopebecomes doubtful.

154.Theld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasrebuttedthecontentions ofdefencewithcogentreasonsandsubmittedthattherecovery ofvisitingcardMarkX1fromtheenvelopewhichalsocontained Rs.3lacson16.08.96hasbeenestablishedfromoverwhelming cogent evidence. He, during his argument, has enumerated variouscircumstances/evidencetostrengthenhisargumentthat the recovery of the said visiting card on 16.08.96 can not be doubted.Someofthosecircumstances/evidencearediscussed hereunder:

Contd....

162

1.S/Sh.HarishKapoor(PW23)andKKGoel(PW24), althoughwhenexaminedinthecourt,didnotsupportthe prosecution case and were declared hostile but they admittedintheirstatementsthattheinitialsappearingon thebackofthesaidvisitingcardwereappendedbythem on16.08.96itselfatthehouseofaccusedwhenallthe documentspertainingtotherecoveryweresigned.Sh.B NJha(PW25),Dy.SuperintendentofPolice,whoheaded theraidingpartyalsostatedthatduringsearchoperation atthehouseoftheaccusedonthatday,aftertherecovery ofthesaidcashandvisitingcardfromtheenvelope,he gotthesaidvisitingcardMarkXIsignedfromthesetwo witnesses.Thus,itcannotbesaidthatthesamewasnot recoveredonthat day. Inview oftheadmission by the saidtwoindependentwitnessesthattheyhadinitialedthe cardMarkX1atthespoton16.08.96,ithardlymatters whetherthesamewasdepositedinthemalkhanaornot. 2.Sh.SunilDutt(PW22)inhisstatementinthecourthas provedtherecoveryofRs.3lacsandthevisitingcardof the coaccused/D S Choudhary from an envelope on 16.08.96. He has assigned a cogent reason for rememberingthesaidfactasitwasunusualsituationthat the visiting card was found in the envelope along with cash. He further stated that the said visiting card was retainedbyCBIofficers. Hestatedonlywhatwasseen andrememberedbyhim,otherwisehehadnodifficultyin identifyingthesaidcardinthecourt.He,inhisstatement, hasstatedthatatthatpointoftimehecouldnotidentify the visiting card in the court. This shows that he is a
Contd....

163

truthfulwitnessandhistestimonycannotbedoubted. 3. The search cum seizure list, Ex.PW22/1 shows that againstentryatsl.no.344,thereisanendorsementtothe effectthatonevisitingcardinthenameofDevinderSingh wasfoundintheenvelope. Theentirecashwhichwas showntohadbeenrecoveredandseizedbyCBIinthe seizure list, Ex.PW22/1, was handed over to Sh.Sunil Dutt,Asstt.Director(INV)IncomeTax,HimachalPradesh, Shimla by CBI officers on 17.08.96 in pursuance to a requisitionU/s132AoftheIncomeTaxAct,1961.Atthe timewhenthesaidcashwastakenoverbySh.SunilDutt, the Income Tax officials also prepared an inventory of cashseized.Similarly,inthisinventory,Ex.PW22/2,they toohavemadeanendorsementagainstentryatsl.no.306 that a visiting card in the name of Devinder Singh was foundintheenvelope. 4.Inrespecttothisissue,itwouldbepertinenttomention that this search was conducted in a different case viz.RC3(A)/96ACUIVinthemonthofAugust,1996when the instant case was not even conceived and the complicity of his coaccused/Devinder Singh Choudhary was not known to CBI. As mentioned earlier that the present case was registered only in the month of November,1996.

155.The cumulative effect of all these circumstances/evidence is thattheprosecutionhassuccessfullyestablishedtherecoveryof


Contd....

164

thevisitingcardonthatday.Thisevidencecompletelyrulesout thepossibilityofplantingofthecardbyCBItomakeoutacase against these two accused viz.Sukh Ram and Devinder Singh Choudhary(sincedead).Insuchasituation,ithardlymattersthat thereisnoentryofthiscardinthemalkhanaregisterofCBI.

156.IthasbeenarguedthatsincecurrencynotesofRs.3lacsand theenvelopeinwhichitwasfoundkept,beingthecaseproperty, were not produced in the court, therefore, the recovery of the cashasshownbytheprosecutionbecomesdoubtful.

157.Itisnotnecessarythatinallthecasesthecasepropertyshould be produced in the court. In this case the prosecution has explained,asdiscussedabove,thattheentirecashwhichwas recoveredfromthehouseoftheaccused/SukhRamwashanded over to Sh.Sunil Dutt, Asstt.Commissioner, Income Tax, who

Contd....

165

deposited the same with the State Bank of India, Mandi and obtainedademanddraftforthesaidamount.Similarly,thenon seizureandnonproductionofthesaidenvelopeinthecourtdoes not make the prosecution case, in any way, doubtful that the currencynoteswerenotfoundkeptinthesaidenvelope. The evidenceofS/Sh.SunilDutt(PW22)andBNJha(PW25)and the said endorsement in the inventory list, Ex.PW22/1 amply provestheexistenceofthesaidenvelopeonthatday.Sincethis wasahugeoperationinadifferentcase,therefore,itwasjust possiblethatitescapedfromthenoticeofCBIofficialsandthe saidenvelopewasnotseized.Thus,therecoveryofRs.3lacsin envelope from suitcase no.10 can not be doubted merely becausethesaidenvelopewasnotseizedbyCBI.

158.During trial PW S/Sh.Harish Kapoor and K K Goel have not supportedtheprosecutioncaseonthepointoftherecoveryofthe

Contd....

166

cashandvisitingcardfromtheenvelope. Onthebasisofthis fact,ithasbeenarguedbytheld.counselforthedefencethat sinceafalsecaseinrespecttotherecoveryofcurrencynotesof Rs.3lacsandthevisitingcardfromanenvelopehasbeenmade out, therefore, the said two independent witnesses viz S/Sh.Harish Kapoor and K K Goel have not supported the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. No doubt these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but it is most surprising that despite the fact theyputtheirsignaturesontheinventorypreparedbyCBIatthe timeofrecoveryofthecashon16.06.96,theyresiledfromthe contents of theinventory. Boththewitnesses werepostedas Asstt.Managers in State Bank of India at Mandi holding responsiblepostinaPublicSectorBank.Itcannotbethoughtof that such responsible officer would put their signature on the inventorywithoutreadingitscontents.Sh.KKGoelhasadmitted

Contd....

167

in his statement that CBI people did not force us to sign the recoverylistorthevisitingcard. Underthissituation,itisnot difficulttovisualizetheprobablereasonbehindtheirresilingfrom theirstatementu/s161Cr.PC.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthad anoccasiontoexamineasituationlikethisinacaseStateofUP Vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 (para 17). The relevant portionfromthesaidjudgmentisextractedandreproducedas follows: Apartfromtherecordofthepolicestationthepanchnama (Ex.Ka7)towhichRameshChandraDubey(DW1)has admittedly appended his signature shows that the reportingtimeofcrimewas9.15p.m.DW1accompanied PrahladKumartopolicestationtolodgethereportthough helaterdefectedtothedefence. Heisapoliticalfigure andsocialworker.Highlyqualifiedtoo.Hewouldnothave signedthePanchanamaifthestatementthereinwerenot trueandcorrect.

159.Thus,theargumentadvancedbytheld.counselfortheaccused hasnoforceandtherecoveryofRs.3lacsofcurrencynotesand

Contd....

168

visitingcardinthenameofDevinderSinghChoudharycannotbe doubted. Moreover,thisrecoveryhasbeenprovedbySh.Sunil Dutt(PW22)andSh.BNJha(PW25). Thereisnoreasonto doubtthetestimonyofthesetwowitnesses.Theyhadnomotive todeposefalsely.Hon'bleSupremeCourtinKhalakSinghVs. StateofWestBengal,2006IIIAD(Crl.)SC657,heldthatthere isnoprohibitiononconvictionbeingrecordedonthebasisofthe testimonyofofficialwitnessesiftheyarefoundtobetrustworthy. Thetestimonyofofficialwitnessesinthiscaseistrustworthyand cogent and there is noreason to disbelievethe same. It has beenheldin Mohd.AkbarButtVs.State,138(2007)DLT43 (DB)thatthereisnopresumptionthatthepoliceofficialsareliars andthattheevidenceofpoliceofficialsistreatedinthesame mannerasthetestimonyofotherwitnessesandtheconviction canberecordedonthebasisofevidenceofpoliceofficials.

Contd....

169

160.Ld.counselfordefence,onbasisofthestatementofSh.Hari Shankar Tandon (PW9), has submitted that the visiting card MarkX1wasnotofthecoaccused/DSChoudhary,therefore, the recovery of Rs.3 lacs can not be connected with his co accused/D S Choudhary. The witness has stated that he remainedemployedwithPunjab,HaryanaandDelhiChamberof CommerceandIndustry(PHDCCI)from1968to1993indifferent capacities and during his tenure there D S Coudhary was the PresidentofPHDCCI.It(PHDCCI)usedtogetthevisitingcardof itsPresidentprinted.AfterseeingthecardMarkX1inthecourt duringhisstatementhestatedthatthiscardwasnotgotprinted bythemforaccused/DevinderSinghChoudhary.Hehasstated thatitwastheirpracticetogetthelogoofPHDCCIprintedonthe left side of the visiting card whereas the particulars of the companywithwhichtheincumbentwasassociatedusedtoget printedonthebackside. Hehas alsoadmittedthatDevinder

Contd....

170

SinghChoudharywastheChairmanofIndustrialCablesLtdat thetimewhenhewasPresidentofPHDCCI.Theld.counselfor the accused has further argued that D S Choudhary was the DirectorofHTLduringtherelevantperiod,therefore,heoughtto haveputthevisitingcardofDirector,HTLintheenvelopeandnot ofPHDCCItoindicatethatthismoneywasinrelationtothesaid tenderofcables.Theseargumentscarrynoweight.Thecourt, rather finds force in the submission of ld.Special Public Prosecutorthatthevisitingcardwasnotputintheenvelopein ordertoshowhisstatusbutitwasonlyforthepurposetoreveal theidentityofthepersonwhohadgivenorsentthemoneyto accused/SukhRam. Nopersonotherthanthecoaccused/DS Choudharywouldhaveanyinterestinkeepingthevisitingcardin theenvelopeinwhichcashamountofRs.3lacswaskept.

161.Thus,thecontentionoftheaccusedcannotbebelievedthat

Contd....

171

thecashrecoveredfromtheroomsonthefirstfloorofthehouse ofaccused/SukhRamwaskeptandmeantforJ&Kelectionand thatwasunderthecareandcustodyofTirathRamandthesame didnotbelongtoSukhRam. Further,itcannotbedisbelieved that the coaccused/D S Choudhary (since deceased) had nothingtodowiththatvisitingcard.

162.Now,herethequestionthatarisesis,whetheronthisevidence, accused/SukhRamcanbeconvictedfortheoffenceofapublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respectofanofficialactpunishableu/s7ofthePCAct,1988. Ld.counsel for defence has submitted that on the basis of the evidencewhichhascomeonrecordnooffenceu/s7ofthePC Actismadeout.Hismaincontentionisthatthereisnoevidence ofdemandonthepartofaccused/SukhRam.Accordingtohim this main ingredient of the offence is missing. He has also

Contd....

172

submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence to substantiate that the accused accepted or obtained the said amount. He has further contended that assuming prosecution caseascorrectone,noonecanbelievethattheaccused,beinga Minister,wouldacceptsuchameageramountofRs.3lacsfor causingpecuniaryadvantageofsecuringpurchaseorderofcable infavourofHTLofsuchamagnitudethevalueofwhichrunsinto croresofrupees.

163.HehasalsoplacedrelianceonjudgmentscitedasCMGirish Babu Vs. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779; State of Rajasthan Vs. MohanLal,AIR2009SC1872;PKGuptaVs.CBI,2011(4) JCC2352;BanarasiDassVs.StateofHaryana,2010(4)SCC 450;AyyaSamyVs.StateofTamilnadu,AIR1992SC644; State of Kerala Vs. C P Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450; Stte of Maharashtra Vs. D L R Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 2001; A

Contd....

173

SubairVs.StaeofKerala,(2009)6SCC587;StateofMPVs. SheetlaSahay,(2009)8SCC617;SurajMalVs.State(Delhi Admn.),(1979)4SCC725andVVenktaSubbaRaoVs.State of A P, (2006) 13 SCC 305, to submit that mere recovery of taintedmoneydivorcedfromthecircumstancesunderwhichitis paid,isnotsufficienttoconvicttheaccusedwhenthesubstantive evidenceinthiscaseisnotreliable.Ithasbeennotedfromthe abovereferredjudgmentsthattheratiooflawinthesecaseswas inrespectofcaseswheretrapwaslaidbypoliceorCBIonthe complaint made by a complainant from whom the bribe was demandedbyapublicservant. Insuchcasesitisessentialto examinethecomplainantandprovethedemandofgratification bythepublicservant.

164.Thisisthefactthatthereisnoevidencetoprovethedemand onthepartoftheaccused/SukhRambutIdonotagreewiththe

Contd....

174

contention of the ld.counsel for the accused that demand is a necessaryingredientofthesaidoffence.Section7oftheActno wherementionstheword'demand.' Generallyinacaseoftrap theevidenceofdemandislaidtoprovethatthetaintedmoney recoveredfromthepossessionwasinpursuancetoademand madebytheaccusedfordoingorforbearingtodoanyofficialact orforshowingorforbearingtoshow,inexerciseofhisofficial function, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. That was why the charge framed against the accused for the offence under this section does not mention that the accused demandedthemoneyforshowingfavourtohiscoaccused/DS Choudhary.Itmentionsonlythatyouacceptedorobtainedfor yourself,gratificationotherthanlegalremunerationamountingto Rs.3lacsfromyourcoaccused/DSChoudhary,theChairmanof HaryanaTelecomLimitedasamotiveorrewardforshowingin

Contd....

175

exercise of your official functions, favour to HTL with the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, by allocating3.5LCKMofadditionalPIJFCablestoitvideyourorder dated03.11.95andbyplacingimmediateorderforpurchaseof4 LCKM of PIJF Cables vide your order dated 08.05.96. The contentionofld.counselfortheaccused,inviewofthis,doesnot deserveanyseriousconsideration.

165.The prosecution has led ample evidence which has been discussedintheprecedingparagraphsthatthesaidmoneyand the visiting card of his coaccused kept in an envelope was recoveredfromthesuitcaseno.10whichwasfoundinthehouse of the accused. This evidence coupled with his (accused's) explanation, his statement and defence evidence led by him, whichwasfoundtobefalse,leadmetobelievethattheaccused acceptedorobtainedthesaidamountfromhiscoaccused/DS

Contd....

176

Choudhary for himself as gratification other than legal remunerationforthepurposementionedinthecharge. Inthis context,itmaybementionedthatalthoughtheaccusedatthe timeofsearchwasnotpresentbutSh.BirSingh,Caretakerand Sh.Rampal,PSOtoSh.AnilSharma(sonoftheaccusedwhowas aministerinHimachalPradesh)werepresentduringthesearch. Theaccused,inordertoprovehisdefence,movedanapplication dated18.08.08inthiscourttosummonsaidRampal(namedas RamLal,ASI,HPPolice)andhissonSh.AnilSharmaasdefence witnesses.SummonswerealsoissuedforpresenceofSh.Ram Lalvideorderdated21.08.08(onthebackoftheapplication)but for reasons best to the accused, he was not examined. The prosecution has rightly submitted that non examination of this witnessbytheaccusedwouldraiseapresumptionu/s114(g)of theEvidenceAct.

Contd....

177

166.Thecontentionoftheld.counselfortheaccusedthatifsucha huge pecuniary advantage was caused to M/s HTL, it was improbable that the accused would accept only Rs.3 lacs as bribe,isdevoidofmerit.Itisalsonottheprosecutioncasethat theaccusedgotonlythismuchamountinthisdealwhichruns intocroresofrupees.Theprosecutioncaseisthattheamountof Rs.3 lacs which was recovered from accused was the bribe money. Itisamatterofcommonknowledgethatitisvirtually impossibletogetanydirectevidencewherebothi.ebribegiver andthepersonwhotakesthebribe,workedinjointconcert. In thecasesofbriberywegetdirectevidenceinthatcircumstance onlywhereoneofthepartyreportsthematterfortakingaction.

167.Ld.counsel for accused has relied upon judgment cited as SharadVs.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1984SC1622,wherein Hon'bleSupremeCourthadlaiddownthatinacasebasedon

Contd....

178

circumstantial evidence there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusionconsistentwiththe innocenceof accused and must showthatinallhumanprobabilities,theactmusthavebeendone by the accused. Healsoreferredand relied upon C Changa Reddy Vs. State of AP, (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a case based on circumstantialevidence,thesettledlawisthatthecircumstances fromwhichtheconclusionofguiltisdrawnshouldbefullyproved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. It was further laid down that the proved circumstances must be consistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltofaccusedand totallyinconsistentwithhisinnocence. Healsocitedandrelied uponsimilarobservationsofHon'bleSupremeCourtin Maj.SK Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 822 and M G AggarwalVs.StateofMaharashtra,2SCR405, Itissettled

Contd....

179

positionoflawthataconvictioncanbereasonablyfoundedof circumstantial evidence if it is wholly inconsistent with the innocenceofaccusedandconsistentonlywithhisguiltotherwise heis entitledtothebenefitofdoubt. Ihavekeptinmindthe fundamental principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court while holdingaccusedguiltyonthebasisofcircumstantialevidence.In thiscasetheinferenceofguiltofaccusedhasbeendrawnfrom the facts which have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonabledoubtsandthusthereisnoscopefortheld.counsel foraccusedtoarguethattheaccusedisentitledtothebenefitof doubtinthepresentcase.

168.From facts & circumstances, as discussed above, I have reached to a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully provedthecommissionofoffencepunishableu/s7andSection 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Contd....

180

againstaccused/SukhRambeyondreasonabledoubt.

CONSPIRACY 169.It is settled legal position as observed by Hon'ble Supreme CourtinStateVs.NavjotSandhu@AfsanGuru,AIR2005SC 3820 (Parliamentattackcase)thatmostly,theconspiraciesare proved by the circumstantial evidence as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its object have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of accused {Per Wadhwa j. in StateVs.Nalini,1999(2)RCR(Crl.)682(SC)}.

170.Accused/SukhRamandDSChoudhary(sincedeceased)have been inter alia, charged for commission of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B of IPC. On the point of conspiracy, the submission of the ld.counsel for accused, is two fold. Firstly,

Contd....

181

according to him, after the death of his coaccused/D S Choudharyduringthetrialofthiscase,accused/SukhRamcan notbeconvictedfortheoffenceofconspiracy.Secondly,thereis no evidence to substantiate the charge of conspiracy against accused/Sukh Ram. According to him prosecution has completely failed to prove the meetings of accused/Sukh Ram withhiscoaccused,duringtherelevantperiod.

171.Hisfirstsubmissioniswithoutbasis.Itsufficetosaythatdeath of an accused only abates the case against him which was pendingbutitdoesnotmitigatetheoffenceallegedtohasbeen committedbyhiminconcertwithhiscoaccused.

172.Itisafactthatinthiscasethereisnodirectevidencetoprove the existence of conspiracy. But it is a well known fact that conspiracy is hatched in private and secrecy, for which direct

Contd....

182

evidence would rarely be available. Existence of conspiracy, almostineverycase,isprovedfromtheattendingcircumstances whichleadonetodrawtheinferenceaboutitsexistence. The factsandcircumstancesshowthatbecauseofproximityofco ccused/DSChoudhary(sinceexpired)withaccused/SukhRam, M/sHTLwashismostfavoredvendor.Fromtheevidencewhich has been led by the prosecution during trial, following circumstances have emerged which lead the court to draw an irresistibleconclusionthatthereexistedaconspiracy:

1.On27.11.96,asdeposedbySh.Anil Kumar(PW20) andapparentfromthesearchlist,Ex.PW20/1,CBIhad conducted the search of the office premises of M/s HaryanaTelecomLimited,locatedatFlatno.4and5DLF, Commercial Complex behind Savitri Cinema, Greater Kailash,NewDelhi.FromthesaidpremisesCBI,besides other documents, seized two diaries, Ex.PW20/2 and PW20/3 containing the addresses and telephone numbersofvariouspersonsincludingaccused/SukhRam. Indiary,Ex.PW20/2inthecolumn'Name&Address',the name of Mr.Sukh Ram and address as 12, Safdarjung Lane,NewDelhihavebeenmentioned.His(SukhRam's)
Contd....

183

office and residence have been mentioned at point 'Y.' Perusalofthediary,Ex.PW20/2wouldshowthatitwas only accused/Sukh Ram, who was the only Central Ministerwhoseresidentialaddresshasbeengiveninit, otherwisetherewasnootherMinisterwhoseresidential addresswithresidencetelephonenumberhasbeengiven. Itshowstheproximityoftheaccusedpersonswitheach other. No doubt, the availability of the name and residentialaddressinthediaryisnotsufficienttoprove theexistenceofcriminalconspiracyifitisseeninisolation but certainly it proves the proximity between these two accused. 2.Ithasbeendiscussedabovethathiscoaccused/DS Choudhary (since expired) had assumed the charge as th chairman of M/s HTL from 5 September, 1995. Document No.45 is the copy of the resolution dated 05.09.95passedattheBoardofDirector'sMeetingofM/s HaryanaTelecomLimitedissuedascertifiedbySh.AS Ketkar, Company Secretary. By this resolution the co accused/DSChoudharywaselectedasChairmanofthe said company. This document has been admitted by accused/D S Choudhary as is apparent from the endorsementmadethereon. Needlesstosaythatafter appointmentaccused/DSChoudharyasChairmanofM/s HTL, this vendor had started getting favour from accused/Sukh Ram. It was the proximity of his co accused with accused/Sukh Ram which started giving unduedividends inthematterofallocationofcables to M/sHTL.

Contd....

184

173.Following are the instances which glaringly show that the accused/Sukh Ram abused his position as public servant to obtain for himself and/or for coaccused/D S Choudhary, valuablethingorpecuniaryadvantage:

i)Accused/SukhRamlaiddowncertainparametersinhis orderdated30.09.95forreallocationofcablestovarious vendor as barely six months were left to achieve the targets. The department, in compliance of this order, prepared the chart, Ex.PW5/6 and reallocated 3.51 LCKMcabletoM/sHTL. Thischartalongwiththenote dated18.10.95(Ex.PW2/D1)recordedbySh.Narendra Kumar, Director (MMS) (PW14) was put up before the accused. Inthesaidnote,itwasspecificallymentioned, however,thesupplypositionofM/sHTLandM/sHCL remainprecarious.Therefore,itisproposednottoaward anyoverflowquantityonthem.DespitethatM/sHTLwas allocatedanadditionalquantityof3.5LCKM,videorder dated03.11.96passedbyaccused/SukhRam. ii)Thereasongivenbytheaccusedforthisincreasewas flimsy. Accused in his note dated 03.11.95, Ex.PW2/9 mentionedthatbecauseoftheapplicationofcriterialaid down in his order dated 30.09.95, some parties were affected, therefore, increased quantity be distributed amongst the affected vendors in view of their performance.Asisevidentfromthesaidchartandnote,
Contd....

185

thesupplypositionofM/sHTLwasverypoor,assuchit wasnotatallanaffectedparty. Asamatteroffact,it should have not been allocated any quantity out of the increasedquantity. iii) Accused vide his note dated 28.02.96, Ex.PW2/6 asked the department to submit the details of the distribution of the remaining quantity of the cable. In compliance to the order, the department prepared the chart, Ex.PW4/2 (placed at page 24/C of D4) and recommendedthevariousquantitiesofcablesallocatedto allthevendorsincludingM/sHTL. Ithadrecommended theallocationof5.61LCKMtoM/sHTL.Thedepartment, however, made it clear that performance of this vendor upto February, 1996 had not been satisfactory, as it, despite its agreement, had not supplied the cables on deferredpaymentbasis. Therefore,itwassuggestedto the accused that further fresh orders on M/s HTL be placedonlyafteritexecutedtheexistingorder,videnote dated31.03.96,Ex.PW4/1andthenotedated02.04.96, Ex.PW5/D1 recorded by Sh.V K Arya, Director (MMS) and Sh.A S Bhola, Director (FIN.V) respectively. The suggestionsputforwardbythesetwoofficersappearto have been approved by Member (F) and Chairman, Telecom Commission vide D4 page 17/N. The accused/Sukh Ram, overruling their reasonable suggestion,allocatedafreshquantityof4LCKMtothis vendor vide his order dated 08.05.96. The reason for suchoverruling,asgivenbyhiminhissaidnote,wasthe proposal to order the placement of order will affect the timelysupplyofthisimportantitemintimei.e.beforethe onset of monsoon. The reason given by him was
Contd....

186

unreasonablethatnoprudentpersonwouldagreewithit. Such an unreasonable order was not at all possible without connivance of coaccused/D S Choudhary with accused/SukhRam. iv) All the vendors, except M/s HTL, had supplied the allocated quantity of the cables against the deferred paymentbutthisvendorinplaceofsupplying,refusedto supplythequantityallocatedtoit. Itwasbroughttothe noticeoftheaccusedrepeatedlybythedepartmentvide note dated 18.10.95 recorded by Sh.Narendra Kumar, Director (MMS), Ex.PW2/D1, note dated 08.12.95 recorded by Sh.R P Hans, DDG (MMII), Ex.PW2/D9, note dated 01.03.96 recorded by Mrs.Anita Soni, DDG (VLF), Ex.PW3/2, note dated 31.03.96, Ex.PW4/1 recorded by Sh.V K Arya andthe note dated 02.04.96, Ex.PW5/D1recordedbySh.ASBhola,Director(FIN.V) thatonlyM/sHTLhadnotsuppliedtheallocatedquantity. Ithadevenrefusedtosupplycableondeferredpayment whilealltheothervendorshadsuppliedit.Despitethis,in placeoftakinganyactionagainstM/sHTL,herewardedit by allocating additional of 3.5 LCKM vide roder dated 03.11.95 and a quantity of 4 LCKM vide order dated 08.05.96 without any justification and much against the interestofthedepartment.

174.Ithascomeinevidencethaton16.08.96,CBIhadsearchedthe residential premises of accused/Sukh Ram at Mohalla

Contd....

187

Samkhetar, Mandi (HP). During search a total amount of Rs. 1,16,51,520/ was recovered contained in bags and suitcases. Fromsuitcaseno.10,anamountofRs.9,50,000/wasrecovered. Outofthisamount,anamountofRs.3lacsinthedenominationof Rs.500/ GC Notes and a visiting card of coaccused/D S Choudharywasfoundcontainedinanenvelope. Itshowsthe nexusofaccused/SukhRamwithhiscoaccused/DSChoudhary andalsothathe(SukhRam)obtainedanillegalgratificationfrom hiscoaccused/DSChoudharytofavourM/sHTL,ofwhichhe wastheChairman,inmatterofallocationofthecable.

175.Thus,theprosecutionhasprovedthecommissionofoffenceof criminal conspiracy by accused/SukhRamu/s 120B IPC read withSections7andSection13(1)(d)r/w13(2)ofPCAct,1988.

176.Onthebasisofmyabovefindings,Iholdaccused/SukhRam

Contd....

188

guiltyofcommissionofoffencesu/s7andSection13(1)(d)r/w 13(2)ofPCAct,1988andofcriminalconspiracypunishableu/s 120BIPCreadwithSections7andSection13(1)(d)r/w13(2)of PC Act, 1988 and convict him for the same. A copy of this judgmentbedeliveredtoaccusedfreeofcost.

Announcedintheopen Courton17.11.2011

(RPPANDEY) SPL.JUDGE01(PCACT) ROHINICOURT:DELHI

Contd....

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen