DILAWAR MIR Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of both the aforesaid revision petitions which assails the order dated 06. 03. 2007 passed by a Learned Special Judge CBI in criminal case No. 10/2000 arising out of, R. C. No. AC-1/98-A0003/cbi/acu-I/nd whereby charges have been framed against both the petitioners under Section 120-B/420 IPC read with Section 13 (2)read with 13 (1) (d) of the RC Act, 1988. The FIR, in the instant case, was registered on 30. 6. 1998 and the charge sheet against the accused persons was filed on 1. 3. 2000.

(2.) IN short the allegations of the prosecution are that a contract was awarded by Shri D. S. Kanwar (Accused No. 1/ A1) while working as the general Manager with M/s. National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) in favour of shri Dilawar Mir (Accused No. 2/ A2) for handling-cum-general services to national Fertilizers Limited (NFL) and transporting supplies to cooperatives and other institutional agencies in the State of Punjab and Haryana vide agreement dated 9. 9. 1993 for a period of five years. The contract was signed by Accused No. 1 in his capacity as General Manager (Marketing) on behalf of NFL. As per the terms and conditions the Accused No. 2 was to be paid remuneration of Rs. 657- per metric tons of Urea manufactured by NFL and supplied to the institutional buyers. If the quantity of the fertilizers supplied exceeded 2 lacs tons, the enhanced remuneration was payable @ 100 per metric ton. In case the take-off was less than 1. 5 lakh tons, the remuneration was to be reduced to Rs. 50/ per metric ton. It is also the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 to give undue favour to Accused No. 2, executed the contract in his favour without following the guidelines, in particular the guidelines given in letter dated 22. 06. 1990, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the General Manager ( Marketing) though has full powers to enter into contract regarding handling of material, subject to conditions namely: (i) financial concurrence; (ii) allocation in the budget and (iii) prior approval of the Director (Finance) or Managing Director with regard to the rates and terms and conditions of contract involving the expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- or above in each case. However, Accused No. 1 neither followed the guidelines nor invited tenders for the execution of this contract.

(3.) THE Accused No. 1, in furtherance of conspiracy with Accused No. 2, also facilitated the release of ad-hoc payment of Rs. 30 lacs in favour of accused No. 2 and for that he directed staff of NFL to stay in office beyond the office hours and personally went to the office and collected the draft to be handed to Accused No. 2. The Accused No. 2 was a former Minister of jammu and Kashmir State. The Accused No. 1 asked Sh. M. A. Sharma to release the ad-hoc payment without the same being verified by the field staff. This aspect of release of payment without verification stands established by the statement of prosecution witnesses M. A. Sharma and Anil Kumar sharma. During the course of investigation, the CBI also recorded the. statement of various witnesses who stated that no work was performed by m/s Good Friends Agencies and was actually done by the field staff of NFL. The bills which were raised by the Accused No. 2 were false as no work was performed by them in terms of contract dated 9. 9. 1993. The perusal of letter dated 31. 3. 1995 also shows that Accused No. 1 facilitated the release of an ad-hoc payment of Rs. 30 lacs against the bill of Rs. 40 lacs.