M SATHIAMOORTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner as accused No. 3 in C.C. No. 25 of 2001 has filed the above criminal revision case against the order dated 10-4-2003 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 108 of 2001 in C.C. No. 25 of 2001 by the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases cum IX Additional Sessions .Judge, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the Crl. M.P. No. 108 of 2001 under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking production of the documents referred to in the petition.

(3.) The prosecution case that the petitioner/A3 was involved in a criminal conspiracy between 1995-96 at Chennai, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Red Hills and other pleas to commit criminal misconduct and cheat the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu in the matter of construction/erecti on of cremation sheds under JRY schemes by using JRY funds and in pursuance of the conspiracy the petitioner/A3 initiated the proposal on 21-6-1995 for the said construction and erection of cremation sheds under JRY at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 30.000/- per shed which was far above the actual cost of construction and A2 accepted the said proposal on 28-6-1995 and included the names of seven societies for executing the said work against the guidelines of JRY and also included the clause for the payment of 50% advance in total violation of G.O.Ms. No. 708 dated 22-8-1994 and A2 forwarded the proposal dated 28-6-1995 directly to Al without sending the same through proper channel. Al approved the proposal on the same day that is on 28-6-1995 knowing fully well that the construction of cremation sheds was not an identified item in JRY and such work should not be entrusted to the middlemen. A4 issued the work order in favour of Karungulam Co-operative Society knowing full well that the construction/erection of cremation sheds in Nagapattinam would be done by A6 in the name of such society and recommended payment of 50% advance suppressing the fact that no bank guarantee was produced and issued demand drafts in favour of the society. A5 facilitated A6 in the encashment of the demand drafts, A6 in the encashment of the demand drafts, A6 who was not even a member of the said society executed the work of erection/construction of cremation sheds in the name of the society in a sub standard manner and not in conformity with the specifications through the sub contractors and thereby Al to A4 abused their official position in collusion with A5 and A6 and caused wrongful loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 23 lakhs and, therefore, according to the prosecution Al to A6 are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 120B read with 420, IPC and 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of PC Act and substantive offences thereof.