DHANPAL ALIAS DHANNU Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal appeal Nos. 18 and 25 of 1988 have been filed by Dhanpal alias Dhannu and Sukhbir Singh respectively (hereinafter described as DP and SS) against their conviction under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of four years and also a fine of 2,0001- each under Section 201134 Indian Penal Code or in default of payment of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment of six months each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) Refinery and Patrochemicals Limited and Others Construction Co.) on .1-2-1989 only stated thet it had "constructed over 300 cubic metre of brick masonry for the packing plant and D.G. Building totalling to 327.29 cubic metre during the month of June 1985". These certificates, it is submitted, do not come upto the requirements of Para 1. We think that this criticism, based on the differences in wording as between the language of para 1 and the certificates produced by the MCC (Mysore Construction Co.), is too weak to be accepted. It was for the KPC Karnataka Power Corporation Limited) to consider the sufficiency of these certificates. The condition only required that the applicant should supply information to show that he had experience in insulation work and that he could carry out brick work in a month to the extent indicated. It was for the KPC (Karnataka. Power Corporation Ltd.) to assess the value of the certificates furnished in this regard and if the KPC (Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.) considered there sufficient to warrant the issue of a tender form to the applicant, we do not think we should interfere with their decision."

(3.) Thus, while the requirement for supply tender documents in that case was that the party should have executed a certain magnitude of work, the certificate produced by the party complained against showed that it was executing works of that magnitude. The court said that the criticism, based on the differences 'in wording as between the language of para I of the eligibility conditions and the certificates produced by the party, was too weak to be accepted. "This authority is clearly distinguishable and docs not help the respondents in the present case.