VARDHMAN KUMAR TALESRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A. No.10879/2019, an application for suspension of custodial sentence. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under, vide judgment dated 19/12/2019 passed by the Special Judge (established under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ) : Section and Act. Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment in lieu of default of payment of fine. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) 4 years' RI 1,00,000/- 1 year RI of Prevention of Corruption Act. 406 r/w. 120-B of 4 years' RI 5,000/- 1 year RI IPC

(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,

(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.