STATE OF A.P. Vs. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dated 22.09.2007 in Crl.M.P.No.816 of 2005 in C.C.No.13 of 2003 passed by learned Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Visakhapatnam, allowing the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C by the respondent/A-5 seeking to discharge him from the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( for short PC Act ), the instant Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/CBI under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case, succinctly is thus: The A1 worked as Director (Commercial) in Steel Authority of India Limited (for short, SAIL ) during October, 1994 and March, 1995. The Steel plants of SAIL produce the sophisticated irons and steel products i.e., plates etc., and export part of those high quality products to abroad. Most of the steel products including plates are exported through Visakhapatnam Port Trust. After completion of shipment of the plates, the left over material (export surplus/export rejected), will be reclassified confirming to Bureau of Indian Standards before disposal in home sales and the material will be sold through Branch Sales office and Branch Transport and Shipping office after completion of Excise formalities for effecting home sales through its branches. The Central Marketing Organization will fix the ex-stock yard prices from time to time at various locations after due approval of competent authority. During July, 1994, the Branch Sales Office, Visakhapatnam with the approval of highest authorities, floated a tender through bidding backed by refundable EMD for the sale of 5200 metric tonnes plates lying in different lots arrived between January, 1993 and April, 1994 and obtained prices ranging between Rs.15,789/- to Rs.17,679/- for different lots by 22 bidders including accused No.4. However, the then Director (Commercial) felt that the rates offered by H1 tenderer were lower by Rs.750/- to Rs.3000/- per metric tonne from the stock yard prices and shelved the proposal and return the refundable security to the tenderer.

(3.) Fulminating the impugned order, learned Special P.P would argue that the trial Court failed to notice that as per settled principles of law mere suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges and in the instant case, there is sufficient material to prove the charges against the respondent/A-5, however the trial Court erroneously discharged him from the offence. He would argue that there is ample material to hold that the respondent/A-5 was part of criminal conspiracy along with other accused. He would argue that the respondent/A-5 directly issued the offer letter in favour of A-4 without classification of the material, thereby the department sustained heavy financial loss. He would submit that even assuming that the respondent/A-5 followed the directions of A-1, still he was not supposed to sell the entire stock without classifying the old and new stock. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2013 AIR(SC) 52 = and Asim Shariff Vs. National Investigation Agency (Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2019, decided on 01.07.2019).