Post on 30-Apr-2020
transcript
1
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM, AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2005
Brigadier(Retd.) D.A. Chansarkar, Son of Late Anant Chansarkar, Resident of 6 Saraswati Layout, Dindayal Nagar, Nagpur, Pin-440022. (Presently residing at Paltan Bazar, P.O- Guwahati District- Kamrup, Assam)
....Appellant -versus- Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
....Respondent By Advocates
For the Appellant: Mr. J.C. Gaur, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. S. C. Keyal
Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2005 Col. Ravi Kumar Khanna(Retd.), Son of Jaichand Khanna, Resident of House No.45, Sector-37 Arun Vihar, Noida-201303 in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
....Appellant -versus- Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
....Respondent By Advocates
For the Appellant: Mr. P. Katakey, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. S. C. Keyal
Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2005 1) Md. Ayub, Son of Late Sheikh Mohd. Faroque, Resident of M.G.Road, Machkhowa, Under Bharalumukh Police Station, Of Guwahati city in the district of Kamrup, Assam. 2) Abdul Khallaque, Son of Late Abdul Razzak, Resident of S.S. Road, Lakhtokia,
2
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
Under Panbazar P.S. of Guwahati In the district of Kamrup, Assam.
....Appellants -versus- Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
....Respondent By Advocates
For the Appellants: Z. Kamar, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. S.C. Keyal
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN
Date of hearing : 30-05-2017
Date of judgment : 29-08-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
These 3 (three) appeals are preferred against the judgment and order
dated 29.12.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, (CBI), Guwahati Assam
in Special Case No.66/2004 convicting the accused appellant Brig. D.A.
Chansarkar and Col. R.K. Khanna under Section 120B/420 and under Section
13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the
other two appellants under Section 120B/420/468/471/465 of the IPC and
sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment and fine with default clauses.
2. The case against the accused appellants came to be registered by the
Superintendent of Police, ACU-1 New Delhi on the basis of source information
received by them to the effect that the accused appellant No. 1 an 2 (A1 and A2)
who were posted as Deputy Director, Supply and Transport (DDST) 101 Area
Headquarter, Shillong and Commanding Officer, Advance Base Supply Depot
3
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
(ABSD), Guwahati respectively in collusion with the other appellants (A3, A4 and
A5) who were army suppliers, by corrupt and illegal means, defrauded the army
by purchasing/supplying huge quantity of sub-standard butter at exorbitant
prices. On completion of investigation CBI submitted charge sheet against the
accused appellants A1 and A2 under Section 120B/420 and Section 5(2) read
with Section 5(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1947 and under Section 420/468/471 of the
IPC against the suppliers Mohammad Ali (since deceased), Md. A. Khalleque and
Md. Ayub (A3, A4 and A5 respectively) and forwarded them to face trial before
the court.
3. Learned Special Judge, CBI framed charges against the appellant A1, A2
under Section 120B/420 of the IPC and section 13(2), read with Section 13(1) (d)
of the P.C. Act and under Section 120/420/468/465/471 of the IPC against the
other 3 appellants A3, A4 and A5. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the
charges. The appellant Md. Ali (A4) died during the pendency of the trial and the
case came to be abated against him.
4. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that during the period
from May, 1984 to May 1985 the appellants A1 and A2 entered into a criminal
conspiracy with the other accused appellant A3, A4 and A5 to purchase butter for
the army units at a very exorbitant price, which they were not authorized to do
as it was a centrally procured item. The butter supplied was found to be unfit for
human consumption. The entire procedure was done in total violation of the
existing circulars by the competent authorities for illegal gain.
5. The accused appellant A1 and A2 admitted having purchased the butter
from the other appellants but denied that it was procured at exorbitant price and
4
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
according to them they followed all the rules and procedures. They also pleaded
that under compelling circumstances the purchase was made at competitive price
that too after inviting quotations. The other appellants who were the suppliers
denied having supplied inferior quality butter and according to them since they
were the lowest bidder, orders were placed with them to supply the butter.
6. Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.
A.No.38/2005, Mr. P. Katakey, learned counsel for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.39/2005 and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel for the appellants in
Crl.A.No.42/2005. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the CBI.
7. Initiating the argument Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for A1 submits that A1
joined as DGST, 101 Area Headquarter, Shillong on 31.03.1984 and after joining
his new assignment he found that though butter and some other articles were
centrally procured articles but those were allowed to be purchased by ABSD,
Guwahati for distribution in army units operating in North Eastern Region and
this was done with the consent of DGST, Shillong. After his joining he continued
the earlier practice and he was oblivious of the procedures followed by A2 as
such there is no question of any criminal conspiracy by him to procure butter at
exorbitant price. Mr. Katakey, learned counsel for the appellant A2 contends that
there is no violation of the Rules and procedures while purchasing the butter for
the army units and as ordered by A1 who was the DGST at the relevant time
articles were purchased after following due procedures. The orders were placed
with the appellants M/S M.K. Enterprise as per recommendation of the Board
constituted for the purpose and as such no illegality was committed. The learned
counsel Mr. Z. Kamar appearing for the A3 and A5 argued that being food
5
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
suppliers they supplied the butter as ordered and they offered to supply best
quality of butter (Polson) and quoted lowest prices and as such, their bid was
accepted and there is no complaint from the authorities that butter was sub-
standard and they had no mechanism to know the quality of the butter inside the
tins supplied by them. No criminal liability can be attributed to them for supplying
the butter to the army unit as per the terms and conditions of the NIT.
8. Advancing further Mr. Gaur, argued that the lowest rate for butter tin as
disclosed by the prosecution witnesses including the representatives of the
manufacturer of Amul and Polson butter was at Rs.43.75/kg, 45.45/kg and
47.50/kg and if local taxes and other charges are added to these rates and 10%
is added to it then the concluding rate will be much higher than the rates at
which the butter tins were purchased by ABSD, Guwahati. Consequently, the
accusations of causing loss to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence is
nothing but a hypothesis for which criminal liability cannot be attributed to any
person. By referring to the evidence of representatives of Amul butter it is further
argued that in the year 1984 there was shortage of butter due to Asian Games in
Delhi. Inviting my attention to the evidence of the representatives of the Amul,
learned counsel contends that the manufacturer has not specified whether the
rates of Rs.41.35/kg and 42.50/kg in 1984 and 47.50/kg and 47.30/kg in 1985
was quoted for paper packed quality or tinned quality of butter and the
difference between the two would be about Rs.10/kg which is apparent from the
evidence of the suppliers of Dimapur and Silchar depots.
9. It is argued on behalf of A2 that the butter was supplied in sealed tins
and he had no knowledge that those were sub-standard as no specific complaint
6
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
was received by him after the tins were sent to different units. The manufacturer
of the butter was Polson which is a reputed company and he never doubted the
quality of the product inside the tins. It is argued on behalf of A3 and A5 that
they also had no knowledge regarding the quality of butter inside the tins and
since the company was a reputed one they did not have suspicion regarding the
quality. When the matter was brought to their notice they expressed their desire
to take back the sub-standard butter. Moreover, it is argued that the butters are
to be kept in freezer and if not kept property there is likelihood of deterioration
of the quality for which they cannot be held liable.
10. The next limb of argument advanced by Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for the
appellant A1 is that MGASC Eastern Command Headquarters, Kolkata accorded
ex post facto approval to the supply orders after going through the documents
and letters, messages in this regard were issued by MGASC and DDST in its turn
issued sanction letters to other store depots in N.E. Region according sanction
and approval for local purchase of butter tins. However, the purported letters,
messages were not produced during the trial of the case and during the
pendency of the appeal an application under Section 294 read with Section 311
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before this court. Accordingly court
also issued notice to the prosecution but no objection has been filed and this
court passed an order to the effect that the petition shall be considered at the
time of final hearing of the appeal. Mr. Gaur, learned counsel contends that if the
procedural irregularities occurring while purchasing/procuring butter locally is the
criteria or benchmark then most of the prosecution witnesses and officials of the
army have committed offence by violating the provisions of ECO-7/66 Exhibit-
7
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
221. Mr. Gaur, strenuously submits that irregularities perse cannot be a ground
to attribute criminal liability to a public servant. Knowingly or unknowingly the
officials/public servants commit genuine mistakes without any ill motive and for
such acts they cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. Butter was essential
at that time for the army units and since there was scarcity of the same due to
Asian Games, the appellants decided to procure butter from the local market and
even if there was some procedural irregularities that would not be a ground to
attribute criminal liability to the officers who were otherwise discharging their
duties honestly without any blemish in their service career.
11. It is also contended that ex post facto approval was given by MGASC
Eastern Command Headquarters, Kolkata to purchase butter after going through
all the relevant documents and had there been any illegality committed or the
rates were exorbitant approval would not have been given. It is also contended
by Mr. Gaur that at the instance of PW 56 a court of enquiry was held regarding
the accusations but the court of enquiry was closed at the behest of some vested
interest as A1 was likely to be exonerated during the enquiry.
12. Before adverting the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties it is necessary to have an overview of the Rules and Procedures for
purchasing/procurement of butter and other items as provided under the
instructions for local purchases contained in Appendix ‘A’ to Eastern Command
Order or ECO 7/66 which takes care of matters from A to Z relating to purchase
of ‘Central Purchase Articles’ marked as Exhibit-221. This document, admittedly
is the binding procedure to be followed for local purchase by any army unit. The
8
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
provisions of the Exhibit-221 having a bearing on the matters in dispute in the
instant case are reproduced below:--
“2. The circumstances under which local purchase may be made are as under-
(a) Central Purchase Supplies:
(i) When ordered by Army H.Q.
(j) When the stock of central purchase articles and its substitutes has been exhausted and there is delay in stocks arriving from central sources or in an emergency. In such cases minimum requirement will be purchased. Prior sanction of BASC(DST, if possible) should be obtained.
3.Local purchase of central purchase articles of food stuffs should , as far as possible, be made from CSD(I). If these are not available with CSD(I) as non-availability certificate will be obtained from them before purchases are made direct from the trade. Items of animal rations are purchased from trade. When purchases are made from the trade it should be ensured that such purchases are made at competitive rates from authorized dealers, standard firms or individual wholesale dealers dealing with these items. If the wholesale dealer are reluctant to give supplies on credit against supply order (IAFZ-2135) and the services of a middleman are necessary, every effort will be made to ensure maximum competition.
4. All purchases will be made at the prevailing market rates. When this is not practicable, purchases may be made at competitive rates which will not exceed the prevailing market rates by more than 10 percent. If due to exceptional circumstances this also is not possible, purchases may be made at the lowest rate available, provided prior approval of BASC is obtained as to the rates to be paid. In such cases, a certificate to that effect will be furnished by the Officer making the purchases. However, these restrictions will not apply to purchases made, at the risk and expenses of defaulting contractors in accordance with the terms and conditions.
LOCAL MARKET RATES:-
2. In order to ensure that local purchases are effected at most economical and competitive rates and also to ensure that the conditions mentioned in Para 4 above are fulfilled. It is essential that local market rates of the item(s) under purchase conforming to ASC specification are available with the Officers effecting the purchase. For this purpose the officer making the purchases w ill request the OC Station to detail a Board of Officers to obtain the local market rates of the item(s) conforming to ASC specification. OC Station, if and when possible, w ill arrange for a representative of Cantonment
9
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
Executive Authorit ies to be associated w ith such enquiries. The rates so obtained w ill be authenticated by the OC Station in the Station Orders and form basis for local purchases.”
13. The prosecution to prove the charges examined as many as 58 witnesses
out of which 24 numbers of witnesses are Army Officials, 8 numbers of witnesses
are Bank Officials and 9 numbers of witnesses are private individuals. That apart,
8 numbers of witnesses have been examined from the Postal and Sale Tax
Department. One government examiner on question documents and one witness
of the sanctioning authority have been examined and 3 numbers of witnesses
also examined from the CBI.
14. In the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge has elaborately
discussed the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses which needs no
further proliferation and I am only referring those pieces of evidence necessary
to decide the questions raised in the appeal. The Army Officials mainly deposed
as to the manner in which local purchase of articles like rice, dal, atta, ghee and
butter etc., are made and the evidence of these set of witnesses established that
usually the above mentioned articles are procured centrally by the central office
known as CDS. In case of shortage of any item in the Army unit such article can
be purchased locally after obtaining sanction from the DDST. For purchasing of
such articles locally quotations are floated and those quotations splited up as per
financial power of the Commandant. In the present case evidence on record
reveals that Board was duly constituted for the purpose and quotations were
invited and the bid offered by the appellants M/S M.K. Traders were accepted
being the lowest. It was sought to be proved by the prosecution that butter was
purchased at exorbitant price of Rs.52/kg though at the relevant time it hovered
10
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
between Rs.41 – 47. There is evidence on record to show that at the relevant
time butter was easily available in Assam and the market price never exceeded
Rs.41 to 47. The defence contention is that A3 and A5 purchased butter @
Rs.49/kg at Patna and that too from the manufacturer company itself and as
such there is no question of purchasing butter at a price lower than the price at
which they purchased the butter in question. With the addition of 10% which is
allowed by the Circular (Exhibit-221) and after inclusion of cost of freight etc.,
the amount at which A3 and A5 supplied the butter cannot be said to be
exorbitant. The learned Trial Judge relying on the testimony of Pw-25 and also
the other materials placed before him came to the finding that there was no
shortage of butter in Assam at the relevant time and all the reputed companies
agreed to supply the army butter not only on credit but at a very competitive low
and concessional price as well. By referring to the evidence of Pw-25 the trial
court has held that though the appellants purchased the butter @ Rs.41/kg it
was supplied at an exorbitant price of Rs.52/- per kg.
15. On going through the evidence of Pw-25, I have noticed that though he
claims to have sold the butter to Abdul Khalleque @ Rs.41/kg but he admitted
that in response to Exhibit-95 letter written by Headquarter, Army Commandant,
Kolkata he quoted the rate of Polson butter @ Rs.49/kg and if huge quantity is
purchased they agreed to reduce the price by Rs.4/kg. His evidence also reveals
that though they had a plan to supply butter sold by them to the purchaser at
their doorstep and the price quoted by him included everything including the cost
of freight but from his evidence it cannot be discerned that they also decided to
supply butter at the doorstep in all the States. Admittedly, Pw-25 was the
11
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
Director of Polson Private Ltd., of Patna and it cannot be said with certainty, from
his evidence that the company agreed to supply butter in Assam without
charging the cost of freight and other incidental expenses. Obviously, the
supplier after purchasing butter at Patna is to carry the same to Guwahati and
after the cost of freight and other incidental expenses are added the price of
butter supplied in Guwahati will be much more than in Patna. It also cannot be
discerned from the evidence of Pw-25 as to whether he quoted the price at
Rs.49/kg for supplying the same at Guwahati or at Patna.
16. The prosecution also made a feeble attempt through the evidence of
some other businessmen, to prove that the market price of butter was much
lower than the price at which the supplier appellants supplied butter to the army.
But it appears from the evidence that the price was fluctuating at the relevant
time. Pw-11, Pw-22 and Pw-34 are Army suppliers. According to Pw-11 he
supplied butter to Panitola depot. He quoted price of Rs.50/kg. Pw-22 quoted
price of Rs.49/kg for supplying butter to the army at Silchar. Pw-34 quoted price
of Rs.45/kg for supplying butter at Dimapur. Similarly, from the evidence of Pw-
14 who was the Depot Manager of Gujarat Cooperative Society, it appears that
rate of butter was fluctuating and though the initial rate was 396.95/ carton in
1994 it was subsequently enhanced to 455.70/ carton in February, 1985.
17. What crystallizes from the evidence is that the price of butter was not
fixed and it was fluctuating and the suppliers supplied butter to army at different
rates in different places.
18. That apart, admittedly, quotations are invited by the Board constituted for
the purpose and those are even opened by the Board members and comparative
12
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
statement are also prepared by the Board. The Board also recommend the price
at which butter is to be purchased. A1 and A2 had no significant role to play in
such matters and actions are taken by them as per recommendation of the
Board. It was none of their business to go to the market and verify. The supplier
appellants offered lowest bid and that was accepted by the Board and even if the
price was on the higher side, criminal liability under such facts and circumstances
cannot be attributed to the appellants A1 and A2. The suppliers are also not
expected to supply butter to the army at the price at which they purchased
butter from the manufacturer and obviously they would quote the price keeping
the margin of profit for which they cannot be held criminally liable.
19. The next question which comes for consideration is as to whether the
supplier appellants submitted quotations in the name of fictitious and non-
existent firms. The prosecution left no stone unturned to prove that the
appellants A3 and A5 submitted quotations in the name of fictitious firms. They
have examined postal peons Pw-2, Pw-3 and Pw-4 to prove that the registered
letters were sought to be delivered to the addressees M/s MT Enterprise and M/s
MK Traders in Fancy Bazar and Lakhtokia respectively. But the letters could not
be delivered as the postal peons could not locate the firms at Fancy Bazar and
Lakhtokia. Needless to say that Fancy Bazar and Lakhtokia are big areas having
several beats and it is not conclusively established that postal peons visited all
the beats in Fancy Bazar and Lakhtokia to deliver the registered letters to the
firms. The prosecution also examined Pw-5, Pw-6 Tax officials and they also
could not find the names of M/s MK Traders and M/S Abdul Sattar and Co. in
their offence record. Pw-7 Excise Officer testified that the name of the firm M/s
13
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
Maqbul was not found in their office record. However it is admitted by Pw-5 that
some firms may deal with business of taxable goods without their knowledge.
Pw-7 Excise Officer admitted that he was adducing evidence from his memory
and as such it is not conclusive from his evidence that the aforesaid firm is non-
existent.Pw-10 army supplier Md. Saifullaha denied his signatures in the various
quotations in the name of his firms M/s Md. Saifullaha and he also denied that
any of his staff member put signatures in the quotations. But there is also no
conclusive evidence that the accused appellants put their signatures in those
quotations submitted on behalf of M/s Md. Saifullaha.
20. Moreover, a firm is an entity under which business is transacted and it is
not compulsory for the firm to have a separate office to prove its physical
existence. The proprietor of the firm can transact business, in the name of the
firm from his place of abode also. Any individual can open a firm to transact
business in the name of a firm and it is not even compulsorily required to be
registered with the Registrar of Firms or with Tax and Excise authorities. Only
trade licence is required to be obtained from the competent authority to transact
business in the name of the firm and the licensing authority can take action if
there is any breach thereof. Similarly, for failure of the firm to clear taxes the
Taxing department is only competent to proceed against the firm according to
their own procedure and statutes. In the present case, in all probability the
postal peons were looking for offices of the firms which they were unable to
locate which cannot be a ground to hold that the firms were non-existent.
Similarly, non-availability of the names of the firms with Tax and Excise
department cannot be a ground to hold that the firms were not existing.
14
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
21. Defence contention is that the appellants suppliers put their own
signatures in the tender document and quotations and no forgery was committed
by them and they did not fabricate any document. The questioned documents
were sent to the expert for examination and opinion. The handwriting expert,
Pw-42 confirmed that handwriting of the appellants were similar to the
handwriting found in the questioned documents which fortifies the defence
version. Moreover, it is for the departmental authorities (here the Board) to verify
the credentials of the bidders and they should have insisted for production of
requisite certificates such as, income tax clearance certificate, sale tax clearance,
trade licence etc. It is not known from the evidence on record, as to whether the
aforesaid documents were produced before the Board by the bidders taking part
in the bids. The Board was constituted with officers of various ranks drawn from
different army units and the Board is responsible for inviting quotations, opening
quotations, preparing the comparative statement and thereafter recommend the
name of the firm or the individual who is found responsive and quoted the lowest
bid.
22. In the instant case, prosecution relied on a number of circumstances to
show that the accused appellants committed offence of criminal conspiracy. The
circumstances relied on are (i) the appellants violated circular vide Exbt.221
which is not only mandatory but also takes care of all from A to Z of the matter
relating to supply of articles to the army; (ii) the accused appellants
purchased/supplied butter to the army at a very exorbitant price; (iii) the butter
so supplied was sub-standard and unfit for human consumption; (iv) the
appellants A1 and A2 purchased butter in huge quantity when there was not
15
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
necessity for purchasing such huge quantity; (v) the butter was procured from
non-existent firms; (vi) the supply orders were splitted up so as to bring such
order of supply within the official power of A2; (vii) the accused appellants, A1 in
particular centralized the process of purchase of centrally purchased articles and
authorized only A2 to purchase those articles locally for distributing the same to
the army units operating in North Easters Region; (viii) the appellant A2
purchased articles without obtaining non-availability certificate from CDS.
23. Mr. S.C.Keyal, learned Standing counsel for the CBI strenuously contends
by referring to the evidence on record that the circumstances from which
conclusion of guilt of the appellants are to be drawn have been fully proved and
those are conclusive in nature and only consistent with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the appellants and totally inconsistent with their innocence. The
circumstances taken together have established that the appellants committed the
crimes and the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond all
reasonable doubt.
24. In controversion, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued
that though there was some departmental lapses, yet any dishonest intention on
their part could not be shown and none of the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution could be construed as incriminating and are of conclusive nature. All
the circumstances put together would not lead to the conclusion that the said
circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellants
and wholly incompatible with their innocence.
25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, I have once again perused
the evidence as well as the materials placed before me.
16
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
26. Prosecution placed before the court the circular which governs the local
purchase of “Centrally Purchased Articles” which unmistakably evinces that the
circular Appendix-‘A’ ECO-7/66 marked as Exhibit-221 strictly prohibits the
army units from purchasing articles which are procured centrally. However, some
relaxation has been provided by the circular itself and in case of emergency army
units are permitted to purchase those items locally on fulfilling certain conditions
and that too, after obtaining approval from the higher authorities. It is to be
ensured that the purchase is made at competitive rates and in any case it will not
exceed the prevailing market rate of more than 10%.
27. In the present case, it transpires that prior approval was not taken before
purchasing the materials but ex-post-facto approval was obtained from MGASC,
Eastern Command Headquarters, Kolkata. The appellant A1 who was posted as
DGST, Eastern Command, Shillong at the relevant time was an officer in the rank
of Brigadier and after receiving requisition from various army units in North
Eastern Region instructed the appellant A2 an officer in the rank of Colonel to
purchase butter locally. Evidence also discloses that instead of purchasing
minimum quantity of butter as provided under Exhibit-221, it was decided to
purchase huge quantity of butter. It was sought to be proved by the prosecution
through the evidence of Pw-21, Pw-26, Pw-29, Pw-30 and Pw-38 that huge
quantity of butter was purchased and sometimes consignment of butter so
purchased was so big that surplus butter from such units was to be transferred
to some other units, only to be rejected, consignee units themselves burdened
with huge quantity of surplus butter. Defence contention is that butter was
purchased only after receiving demands from various army units operating in
17
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
North Eastern Region and as such, there was no violation of the circular,
Exhibit-221. It is found from the record that during the period from May, 1984
to May, 1985 total quantity of butter purchased was 31.5 M.T., by A2. What
emerges from the evidence is that no prior assessment regarding requirement
was made before placing orders and from a perusal of the evidence on record it
cannot be inferred that the quantity of butter purchased was in conformity with
circular, Exhibit-221 which prescribed minimum quantity to be purchased in
case of emergency only.
28. However, evidence reveals that the entire quantity of butter was not
procured at a time and orders were issued to the supplier from time to time.
According to Pw-1 Gur Kripal Singh, who was the Deputy Commander of ABSD at
the relevant time, if there was shortage of any article, such article can be
purchased locally and for that purpose quotations are invited and such
quotations are split as per financial power of the Commandant. Notice inviting
quotations are displayed in the notice board and after receipt of the same,
quotations are kept in a locked box, key of which is retained by Deputy
Commandant. From his evidence I do not find any substantial deviation from the
circular, Exhibit-221 except the quantity His evidence reveals that MGASC,
Kolkata is the head office for Eastern Command in the matters of supply of
articles and Commandant Eastern Command, DDST, Headquarter, Shillong is
under MGASC. Evidence of Pw-19 shows that he was the Presiding Officer of the
Board constituted for the purpose and from his evidence, it appears that the
procedures were duly followed and connected files were duly maintained by the
Board and some of the files were even produced during the trial.
18
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
29. When articles are sought to be procured it is the duty of the officers
connected with the procurement, before placing the orders, to make assessment
of the quantity of the article to be purchased. In the present case from the
evidence on record it cannot be discerned that any prior assessment was made.
However, the evidence discloses that requisitions were received by the DDST,
Shillong from different army units requesting for butter pursuant to which it was
decided to procure butter locally. It also found from the evidence that huge
consignment of butter was sent to some units which the units were unable to
consume due to which excess butter tins were allocated to other units. On an
overall assessment of the evidence it can be said with some degree of certainty
that the quantity of butter procured was not in conformity with the Circular
Exhibit-221. May be it was an error of judgment or an act of indiscretion, but
from that alone dishonest intention cannot be inferred. Reverting back to the
evidence I have found that A1 joined in his new assignment in Shillong in March,
1984. He being the DDST was the person responsible for maintaining the
essential supplies to the various units in the North Eastern Region. Butter which
is essential for army was scarce at that time due to Asian Games in Delhi. Prior
to his joining army units used to purchase butter locally according to their
requirement. Defence argued that since Guwahati is the only city in NE Region,
he thought that butter would be cheaper in Guwahati and due to this reason he
restricted the army units from procuring butter locally and instead asked A2 to do
the job for the entire region. There was no ill motive on his part and his only
fault was his inability to assess the actual requirement and decided to procure
butter for the entire region. Moreover, there is no evidence that butter tins were
not consumed and destroyed. No doubt complaints were received by the
19
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
appellants regarding quality and though the samples of butter was not sent to
food analyst of Central Food Laboratory for examination but from the evidence
on record particularly, the evidence of Pw-9 Sudhir Kr. Seni, Wing Commander,
Pw-21 GPS Mehra, Administrative Officer, Panitola, Pw-30 Major S.Kr. Sarma,
Pw-38 A. Nimbulkar, Commanding Officer, supply depot, Silchar, Pw-51 Arabinda
Kr. Rai, Squadron Leader it emerges that the quality of butter received by the
units in which they were posted was inferior and unfit for human consumption.
There was leakage in some tins of the butter from which foul smell was
emanating. When the appellant A2 received complaints regarding the quality, he
even asked to return the tins with a view to return the same to the suppliers.
Pw-51 even calculated the quantity of butter which was found unfit for human
consumption and he worked out the damage at Rs.8065.05 against 194.86 kg of
butter. Butter was sought to be tested in the Central Food Laboratory and letter
to that effect was also issued in response to which CFL asked for previous
laboratory report, but despite repeated communications made, the composite
Food Laboratory could not furnish the report.
30. It is argued that since the butter has not been examined in the laboratory
the same cannot be said to be unfit for human consumption but the argument is
found to be devoid of any substance. Even a common man can say after
consuming the butter and smelling it about the quality of the same, no further
testing is necessary. In the present case some of the army officials found the
butter unfit for human consumption and there was foul smell emanating from the
tins which were leaking. The evidence of the army officials amply proved that
some of the butter tins supplied were not fit for human consumption.
20
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
31. Now the question is whether the appellants knew that the butter was not
fit for human consumption. Admittedly, the butter tins were received by ABSD. It
is argued that since it was supplied in sealed tins, they had no knowledge that
those were sub standard as no specific complain was received by ABSD after the
tins were sent to different units. They have no reason to doubt the quality
because the manufacturer was Polson. The suppliers were also under the
impression that since the butter was supplied by Polson the same would be of
good quality. They were totally unaware of the quality inside the tins and they
were even willing to take back the tins which were found leaking. From the
evidence on record it cannot be said with certainty that the appellants had
knowledge that the butter tins were not fit for human consumption. The
appellant A2 even asked the officers to return the tins found damaged so that
the same could be returned to the suppliers. Moreover, appellants were senior
army officials in the rank of Brigadier and Colonel and it is unbelievable that they
would enter into conspiracy with the other appellants to procure rotten butter for
the army units for consumption.
32. Another circumstance, relied upon by the prosecution is that the appellant
A2 during that period had sent money to his other family members through
demand draft. On going through the evidence of Pw-32 Anik Kr. Gupta and Pw-
48 H.S. Agarwal both bank officials it appears that draft for Rs.8,000/-,
Rs.7,000/- and Rs.5000/- and other draft of small denominations were sent from
Maligaon branch of the SBI, to the family members of the appellant A2 residing
in Delhi. There is no evidence that he was incapable of sending the amounts to
his family members. The amounts involved were also not big enough to raise any
21
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
doubt regarding his financial capacity to send the amounts to his family members
including his wife and children. The officer was posted in Guwahati at the
relevant time leaving his family at RK Puram at Delhi and it was not unusual for
him to send the money to his family members through drafts. In his statement
recorded under Section 313 CrPC the accused appellant admitted having sent
Rs.7,000/- which was drawn on SBI Silpukhuri branch. Prosecution is unable to
connect this amount with the payments purportedly made to the supplier
appellants for supply of butter tins. For sending of such small amounts to his
family members criminal liability cannot be attributed to him unless it is proved
affirmatively that such amounts were received by him for placing the supply
orders with the suppliers.
33. Learned CBI counsel made strenuous submissions to convince me that
splitting of the supply orders were done to bring the orders within the financial
power of A2. A1 only authorised A 2 to purchase butter locally for the army units
in North Eastern Region which was intentionally done for wrongful gain. He also
submits that non availability certificate was not obtained from CDS before
purchasing butter locally.
34. Opposing the contentions learned counsel for the appellants A1 and A2
argued that the procedure of splitting supply orders to bring the orders under the
financial power of the disbursing officer was done to expedite the process of
procurement without causing any pecuniary loss to the ex-chequer and the
procedure is in vogue in the departments. Learned counsel also argued that it
was the prerogative of the DDST to decide to whom the authority is to be given
to procure items locally and his decision cannot be called in question. It is also
22
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
argued that there was scarcity of the butter due Asian Games which compelled
A1 to procure butter urgently and therefore, non availability certificate was not
obtained from CDS before purchase.
35. It is an admitted position that supply orders for entire quantity was not
placed at a time and different orders were issued for different quantities. In
many government departments such procedure is in vogue which is usually
followed to bring the orders within the financial power of the officer concerned,
although, such a procedure cannot be approved, but this is the ground reality
which cannot be ignored. Departmental authority should restrict such procedure
being followed and issue necessary directions to the officers concerned not to
resort to such practice which is likely to open avenues for corruption.
36. In the present case also such a procedure was being followed. In my
considered view it was a procedural lapse for which no criminal liability could be
attributed. Moreover, ex post facto approval was given by higher authority to the
procurement orders and the bills were also approved. There is no evidence that
authorities raised any objection in the matter. The same analogy can also be
applied for inability of A2 to obtain non-availability certificate from CDS before
procurement. Scarcity of butter at that time due to Asian Games might have
prompted the officers A1 and A2 to procure butter urgently.
37. On a critical analysis of the entire evidence on record, oral as well as
documentary though I have noticed some departure from the usual procedure
and the circular Exhibit-221 but I am of the view that it is impossible to doubt
the bonafide of the appellants. The entire charges against the appellants rested
on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove that the
23
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
circumstances were such as can be explained only on one hypothesis, namely,
that the accused was guilty. Before a presumption against the appellants could
be raised, it must be proved that they knew that other suppliers would have
charged lesser amounts for the butter so purchased. Though the official of the
Polson company claims to have sold the butter to the appellant suppliers at
Rs.41/kg but it appears from the correspondence with the army that he was
ready to supply butter at Rs.49/kg. But there is no evidence that he agreed to
supply the butter on credit basis. The suppliers in the instant case were lowest
bidders and they were approved by the Board constituted for the purpose and it
was the duty of the Board members to look into these aspects. For their
indiscretion the appellants A1 and A2 cannot be saddled with criminal liability.
38. Learned counsel for the accused appellants strongly urged that the
prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charges against the accused
persons and the trial court has committed manifest illegality by recording their
conviction. It was argued that there was no violation of circular Exhibit-221 by
the army officials A1 and A2 and even assuming that there was some non-
compliance here and there, there was no dishonest intention on the part of the
A1 and A2 and this aspect was totally ignored by the learned Special Judge while
recording their conviction.
39. Learned Standing counsel for the CBI on the other hand, submitted that
there was blatant violation of the circular by the army officials and the proved
circumstances established that the appellants A1 and A2 intentionally purchased
huge quantity of rotten butter unfit for human consumption at an exorbitant
price for wrongful gain for themselves and for wrongful loss to the Government.
24
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
40. Adverting to the facts of the case, it has already been noticed that the
allegation against the appellants A1 and A2 is that they had purchased huge
quantity of butter from the appellants A3 and A5 at an exorbitant price. The
appellants A1 and A2 admitted having purchased the butter, but denied the
accusations and according to them the butter was purchased as it was scarce at
that time due to Asian Games as per requirement of the army units located in
North Eastern Region. They had no knowledge that the butter tins were unfit for
human consumption and they even asked for returning the damaged butter tins
which clearly demonstrates that they had no dishonest intention to defraud the
Government. Board was duly constituted and the official decision was taken by
the Board and they followed the recommendation of the Board for which they
cannot be held liable. For mere departure from the circular Exhibit-221 they
cannot be held to have abused their official position and intentionally caused any
pecuniary loss to the State ex-chequer or wrongful gain for themselves.
41. Confronted with a similar situation, The Apex Court, in the case of C.
Chenga Reddy vs State of A.P. reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193, in
paragraph 22 of the judgment has observed as follows:---
“On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed departmental lapse yet. None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), [1980] 3 SCC 110, under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and con-tractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the
25
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
concerned officials and contractors, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the trial court and the High Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper. That because of the actions of the appellants in breach of codal provisions, instructions and procedural safeguards, the Stale may have suffered financially, particularly by allotment of work on nomination basis without inviting tenders, but those acts of omission and commission by themselves do not establish the commission of criminal offences alleged against them.”
42. In the instant case also there might have been some departure from the
circular by the accused appellants while purchasing butter, but mere violation of
the circular without dishonest intention cannot be a ground to hold them
criminally liable.
43. In C.K. Jaffer Sharief vs State (Through CBI) reported in (2013) 1
SCC 205 the Apex Court while handing down the order has observed by
referring to criminal law by K. D. Gaur as follows:---
“Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violation of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signified that there can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively.”
44. Having regard to the above observations and having considered the
evidence in its entirety I am hesitant to attribute dishonest intention on the part
of the accused appellants while purchasing butter.
45. Another grievance of the defence is that the charges framed against the
accused appellants were defective. During the trial charges were framed under
Section 120B/420/468/465/471 of the IPC against the accused appellants A3 and
26
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
A5 and separate charges were framed against the accused appellants Brigadier
D.A Chansarkar (A1) and Colonel R.K. Khanna (A2) under Section 120B/420 of
the IPC and also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. It submitted that no charges of criminal conspiracy under Section
120B of the IPC have been framed jointly against all the accused appellants and
in the absence of joint charges of conspiracy the appellants A3 and A5 could not
have been tried by the court of Special Judge as envisaged under Section 4 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the entire trial got vitiated. The
learned Trial Judge has addressed this contention adequately in his impugned
judgment by observing that such defects in charge would not cause any harm to
the trial of the case inasmuch as it is a case where public and private persons are
jointly tried and the offence which they were tried for were committed in the
course of same transactions and that the very compartmentalized approach to
the allegations levelled against the accused persons is neither desirable nor
permissible. Learned Trial Judge further observed that provisions of Section
215/464 CrPC as well as Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act clearly
postulates that mere error/defect in the charge would not derail the trial unless
such defects/errors has resulted prejudice being caused to the accused. Since no
prejudice was shown to have been caused in the present case to the accused
appellants, the trial would not vitiate. There is no reason to differ with the
opinion rendered by the Trial Judge regarding the defects in the charge.
46. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued by referring to the
judgment of the Apex court in Vikramjit Singh Alias Vicky vs. State of
Punjab (2006) 12 SCC 306, to contend that where two views of a story
27
Crl. A. No.38 of 2005 Crl. A. No.39 of 2005 Crl.A. No. 42 of 2005
appear to be probable, the one that was contended by the accused should be
accepted. It is further contended that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot
be a substitute for proof. Arguments cannot be thrown out of consideration. In
the present case though the prosecution alleged that the accused appellants
violated codal provision but the appellants have offered explanation for each of
the circumstances appearing against them. Although they are suspected to have
been involved but it is well settled that suspicion is not a substitute for proof.
The explanations offered by them cannot be brushed aside and rejected in
limine.
47. From all my discussions above and the reasons aforementioned, I allow
the appeals preferred by the appellants by setting aside the conviction recorded
by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam.
48. Consequently, the accused appellants are acquitted and set at liberty
forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands discharged.
49. Send down the LCR forthwith.
JUDGE Rupam