G.S. DEWANGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment dtd. 17/7/2007 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.30 of 2004, whereby all the <FRM>JUDGEMENT_54_LAWS(CHH)8_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) According to the case of prosecution, in the year 1994-95 Appellant 1 G.S. Dewangan was posted as S.D.O. (Phones) in the Telecom Department, Rajnandgaon. Appellant 2 S.C. Sadh was posted there as J.T.O. (Phones). Appellant 3 Pramesh Kumar Agrawal was the proprietor of M/s Engineering Complex and Appellant 4 Ajit Singh was a partner of M/s Engineering Complex. Further case of the prosecution is that in the year 1994-95 a tender was floated by the Telecom Department for laying underground telephone cable for about 40 Kms. Tender of Appellants 3 and 4 was accepted and they were issued work order. According to the work order, trench for the underground cable, which was to be laid by Appellants 3 and 4, was to be 3x1 feet. Allegedly, all the Appellants made a criminal conspiracy and under the conspiracy Appellants 3 and 4 reduced the trench for the cable from 3x1 feet to 22.68 inches only. However, in the measurement book, they mentioned that the trench was of 3x1 feet. The said forged measurement book was duly got verified through Appellants 1 and 2 and a forged bill amounting to Rs.3,09,240.00 was also submitted by Appellants 3 and 4, which was also verified by Appellants 1 and 2. Resultantly, the said bill was passed by the higher officers. Thus, excess payment of Rs.1,92,301.20 was made to Appellants 3 and 4 and thereby a loss of the same amount was caused to the Telecom Department. On receiving information from a source, First Information Report was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide Ex.P19. During the course of inquiry and investigation, the work which was done by Appellants 3 and 4 was also inspected by the officials of the CBI and in this regard inspection report (Ex.P11) dtd. 13/12/1996 and memorandum of inspection (Ex.P12) dtd. 14/12/1996 were also prepared. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 5 witnesses were examined in defence by the Appellants. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the instant appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that without there being sufficient and clinching evidence on record the Trial Court convicted the Appellants. Referring to the statements of PW4 S.N. Panse, PW5 Ram Singh Chouhan and PW7 B.S. Kushwah, it was argued that spot inspection was done on the basis of L-14 diagram which is used in cable spread over the poles, i.e., above the ground and the said inspection was not based on the cable diagram which is laid underground. Therefore, the entire inspection report of the CBI is not acceptable as inspection is not possible on the basis of L-14 diagram. It was further submitted that at the time of inspection carried out by the CBI, Appellants 3 and 4 were not present at the spot and after inspection also they were not afforded opportunity of offering explanation. It was further argued that from the evidence on record it is established that after laying of the cable underground 2 rainy seasons had passed and, therefore, filling of soil in the trench was natural. Hence, there can be difference in the measurement of trench which was taken after 2 years. It was further argued that the first inspection (Ex.P10) was done by the Telecom Department and according to the statements of witnesses the measurement which was taken by Vasant Walde of the Telecom Department during the inspection was written by him in a diary, but, Vasant Walde has not been examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court nor was the said diary which was a primary evidence of the said measurement produced before the Trial Court. Therefore, the inspection report (Ex.P10) is also not acceptable.