STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. N S GIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court acquitting the respondent accused. These accused, five in number, along with one Gurbachan Singh were put up for trial before the Special Judge of Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 5(2) read with S. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Gurbachan Singh who was the brother of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein was adjudged insane and his trial was separated. The remaining accused were convicted and sentenced to one and a half years and six years respectively under these two counts and also sentenced to pay fines. On appeal, the High Court reversed the same and acquitted all of them. Hence the present appeal before this Court pursuant to the leave granted.

(2.) The first respondent N. S. Giani functioned as Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, in charge of section for distribution of Stainless Steel, for the period from 27-6-60 to July, 1961. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 and Gurbachan Singh were brothers. Accused No. 5 was their friend and partner. It is alleged that first respondent was also known to the other accused, when he functioned as Deputy Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller. The accused Nos. 2 to 5 were manufacturing wire / fencing wire/wire nails/wire-drawing units in the names of M/s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, Patna, Bawa Screw and Wire Products, Delhi, Bharat Wire Nail Industry, Delhi, National Wire and Nail Industries, Delhi and Weldon Wire and Wire Nail Industries, during the period October, 1959 and November, 1959. When the first accused was promoted as Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller on 27-5-60 and was in charge of section dealing with distribution of stainless steel for utensil manufacturing he is said to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused and Gurbachan Singh to give pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means and by abuse of his own powers, by releasing huge quantities of stainless steel, the import and distribution of which was done by the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. During the period from 27-5-60 to 26-6-61 the first accused in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy between the accused, obtained advantage for himself and for the other coconspirators by abuse of his powers and his position as a public servant and dishonestly, fraudulently and unauthorisedly secured release orders of the quantities of stainless steel for the benefit of the other co-accused and Gurbachan Singh. The release orders are 15 in numbers:

(3.) In this appeal by the State, the learned counsel submits that the High Court has not given cogent and compelling reasons for reversing the judgment of the trial Court and that there is ample evidence to show that the first accused obtained pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as public servant and in conspiracy with other accused. It is also submitted that in respect of allotments to the Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, the judgment of the High Court suffers from a patent fallacy. It is also submitted that the very fact that so many irregularities have been committed by the first accused in getting these releases in favour of the other accused, by itself shows that the first accused acted dishonestly and the other accused conspired with him. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. Accused No. 1, in his elaborate statement, has given explanation in respect of each of these releases and the sum and substance of which is that whatever allotments were made were permissible under the policies and that he did not make the allotments on his own responsibility but they were made under the orders of the Iron and Steel Controller. He denied having shown any favour to the other accused. As mentioned above, the Government has set out a particular policy regarding the allotment of the stainless steel quota. It is a common case that prior to the imposition of the ban by the Government, licences were granted to manufacturers of stainless steel utensils for the import of stainless steel on the basis of their assessed capacity. However, a circular was issued by the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries to the Directors of all the States (Ex. P. 578) advising the Directors that the requirements of stainless steel for the manufacture of utensils may be sponsored on a basis of 20% of the assessed capacity of the small scale industries and no new capacity should be recognised for this and the sponsoring authority should directly, forward the applications to the Steel Control Organisation at Calcutta and that import applications of new units need not be routed through the office of the Development Commissioner but that import applications in respect of all small industrial units, whether new or old may be sent direct to the respective Iron and Steel Controller Office at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. This policy was further explained by another letter dated 7-12-59 (Ex.P.732) where the Directors of Industries were advised that already enough capacity existing in the country for the production of stainless steel utensils and that further capacity for such items should not be set up and they were requested not to encourage any proposal from the small scale industries for the manufacture of these items. A public notice was subsequently issued on 1-4-60 by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel notifying the new import licensing policy that no imports were to be allowed to be made by manufacturers of stainless steel utensils. The policy under Ex.P.578 has been revised by a subsequent note dated 4-6-60 marked as Ex.D.123 which indicated the policy to be followed with regard to the supply of stainless steel to the manufacturers of utensils, both old and new, to whom import licences had been banned under the public notice Ex.P.678. It was stated therein that in addition to the stainless steel imported under licences to various parties, certain quantity of stainless steel had also been imported and that this stock of stainless steel would be distributed to the manufacturers of stainless steel utensils who could not be granted import licences by virtue of the ban dated 1-4-60. It is further stated that a small stock of about 50 tons would be reserved to meet the demands of newcomers whose demands could not be sponsored in time for import licences during the period October 1959 to March, 1960. In pursuance of this policy, a circular was issued from the office of the Iron and Steel Controller to the Directors of Industries of all the States on 22-7-60 (Ex.P.655) vide which the Directors were requested to forward a statement of all the applications from new units who had actually applied in time. After the receipt of the said statements, the Iron and Steel Controller indicated the guidelines for the distribution of the stainless steel to the various applicants whose applications had been sponsored by the Directors of Industries. These guidelines are contained in the office note Ex.P.713 wherein it was stated that no uniform basis of figures were available and it was also found that the Directors of Industries, Bombay had issued recommendations on the basis of 20% of the actual assessed capacity. It was, therefore, decided that in case of Bombay applicants, the licenced tonnage should be multiplied four times so that 80% of the recommended quantity may be taken into consideration. Similarly it was decided to make allotment at the rate of 62% to the established units and so far as the newcomers were concerned, 100 tons out of the available quantity of the stainless steel was kept aside for meeting their demands which could not be sponsored in time for the licensing period from October 1959 to March, 1960. The Directors of Industries were also informed that the releases to new comers covered their requirements up to September, 1960 and that these releases should also be taken into account at the time of considering issue of recommendation for the next licensing period. By an office memonrandum dated 11-2-60, the Deputy Iron and Steel Controller sought the advice of the Ministry of Steel with regard to the import licensing policy for stainless steel sheets to the utensils manufacturers and it was pointed out that the policy laid down by the Ministry banning the grant of import licences to utensils manufacturers did not debar new units of stainlesssteel utensils makers from applying for such releases from barter imports and that the demands from such units should also be considered. In the reply received from the Ministry (Ex. D. 178) it is noted, policy for the distribution / allocation of stainless steel, sheets to the utensil manufacturers for the period October 1960/ March 1961, that it would be difficult to indicate the percentage of release to be made for October, 1960 to March, 1961 and that in view of the fact that large quantities were reported to be in stock with the importers, it was decided that Iron and steel Controller should immediately release to the extent of 50% of the quantity released In the previous period to all firms who had applied as advance allotment and that the balance quantum of release could be determined after knowing the full sponsored demands and the quantity' available for distribution. It appears that this position was again reviewed and in view of the availability of the stock, certain decisions in respect of the old and the new units, are mentioned in the note (Ex.D.110). As per this note it was decided to release 90% of the recommended quantity to the old units and in respect of the new units, 400 tons approximately was set apart and the said policy was explained to the Directors of Industries. These policies were explained by some of the witnesses who were examined, PW 73 Shri A. S. Barn, Iron and Steel Controller, PW 62, Shri S. C. Mukherjee, Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta and PW 68 Shri Parkash Kumar Ghosh, Assistant, Steel Import Branch, Office of the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta.