P.P. TOMAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Also heard on I.A. No.10783/2019, an application for suspension of custodial sentence. The appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under :

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the Special Police Establishment (SPE) registered a case in the 1.3.1995 vide Crime No. 20/1995, under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC against seven Government employees, namely (i) Late P. K. Monda the then Chief Engineer, (ii) B. D. Tiwari the then Superintending Engineer, (iii) A. K. Sojatiya the then Executive Engineer, (iv) V. K. Talsera the then Assistant Engineer in Criminal Revision No.671 of 2014, (v) P. D. Gupta Sub Engineer (vi) M.L. Joshi the then Superintending Engineer and fours partners of M/s Pallanattil Construction Company, Kerala ( here in after referred as ' Contractor') , namely P.P. Thomas, P.P. Polus, Kurian Paul and P.P. George. The above case was registered on the directions of Dy. Inspector General, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal against appellant and others .It was alleged in the FIR that a contract was awarded for construction of dam which is commonly known as 'Man Project' by order No. 115/17/MNM/90 dated 25.8.1990 to the 'contractor', Kerala and the 'contractor' was directed to complete the work within 29 months i.e. by 29.2.1993. The total cost of the contract was Rs.13.18 crores .As per the term No. 3.23.2 of the contract, the contractor was to be paid an advance for the purpose of bringing and purchasing machinery to be used for the purpose of construction of the Dam. Accordingly Superintending Engineer NVDA, Circular No. 10, Manawar by his letter dated 22.9.1990 ordered the payment of Rs. 110.95 lakhs to the contractor for purchasing the machines. The contractor purchased the various machines to be used in the construction work. On 23.9.1994, the Executive Engineer, Narmada Development Authority (NVDA), Division No. 10, Manawar informed the Director, Rehabilitation, Bhopal that the 'contractor' has removed the machines from the site on 10.6.1991 before completion of work during contract period. The preliminary inquiry was ordered in which it was revealed that the contractor has removed the machines on 10.6.1991 from the site, still the payments towards advance for machinery were made on 25.10.1991 of Rs. 6.38 Lakhs and of Rs.7.07 Lakhs on 6.4.1992, which ought not to have been done ,the machines were hypothecated with the department by the contractor and, therefore, the possession over the machines should have been continued by the department, but it was not done so, and the contractor has failed to complete the construction work in the specified period, as per the Term No. 4.32, even then the period of contract has been extended.

(3.) It was also found that the contractor was already having machines which he has shown as new machines and recovered money from the Government. The appellant and other government officers have failed to assess the correct value of those machines, at the time of payment of bills of purchase and thereby caused heavy losses to the government and gave undue financial benefit to the contractor. It was also found that though an advance of R. 1.10 crores was given to the contractor and as per the terms of the contractor, recovery of 10% of the total amount of advance should have been made from the running bills. It was also found that the contractor did not complete the work within the prescribed period from September, 1990 to February 1993 as per the terms of the contract and he did work of only Rs. 1.32 Crores out of 13.18 Crores within this period, but no action was taken by the concerning officers against the contractor and they allowed him to take the machines out of the project area and wrongly extended the period of contract. No information regarding these facts was given to the higher officers in time and thereby present appellant and other government servant have illegally benefited the contractor and caused a loss to the Government and, therefore, they misused their official position and committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC.