ABDULLA MOHAMMAD PAGARKAR MORESHWAR HARI MAHATME Vs. STATE UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU :STATE UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 224 and 268 of 1977 in both of which a judgment dated 19th of March, 1977 of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, upholding the conviction of the appellants and the sentences imposed upon them by the trial Court is challenged.

(2.) THE prosecution case has to be set out at some length and may be stated thus. In the year 1965 the appellant Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar (hereinafter referred to as A-1) was holding the post of Surveyor-in-charge, Mercantile Marine Department, Marmogoa as also of the Captain of Ports, Panaji. In his capacity last-mentioned, the work of deepening and widening the Kumbarjus canal which connects river Zuari with river Mandovi required his urgent attention as the canal had to be made navigable at low tide for the use of mine barges during monsoon season when the sea becomes rough and it is hazardous to navigate across the mount of the river Mandovi at Aguda. A survey of the canal had been carried out by the Marmagoa Port Trust and its report had been submitted to the concerned authorities. Tenders were invited by A-1 through an advertisement in the press and appellant Moreshwar Hari Mahatme (hereinafter described as A-2) was the only person to present one, which he did on the 5/01/1966. As the cost of the work exceeded rupees one lakh and the tender was a solitary one, the Lieut. Governor forwarded it to the Central Government for approval and did not accept a suggestion made by the Secretary to the Industries and Labour Department (to be hereinafter called I. L. D.) that the work be started immediately in anticipation of the said approval. Nevertheless A-1 entrusted the work to A-2 who started executing it on 15/03/1966. No approval of the tender was received from the Government of India who directed, however, that the work be carried out departmentally.

(3.) FROM the documentary evidence placed on the record at the trial the learned Special Judge found the following facts proved: