STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. HAOKHOLAL THANGJOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3.11.1984 of the Special Judge, Manipur in Special Trial No.9 of 1980 acquitting the two accused persons who were charged for offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in short was that during the relevant time Shri Haokholal Thangjom, accused No.1 was the Development Minister, Government of Manipur. By a notice dated 6.8. 1974 tenders were invited for supply of materials by the Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Government of Manipur. In response to the said tender notice sealed quotations were received from 12 concerns including the accused No.2 Shri M.A. Ghani. When the tenders were opened, the rate quoted by M/s Ch. Ibochouba Singh was the lowest i.e. Rs. 100/- per quintal in respect of the whole and crushed yellow maize. Accordingly, the Tender Committee recommended the case of M/s Ch. Ibochouba Singh but the accused No.1 by his note dated 5.2.1975 observed that the rates quoted by some of the tenderers were much below the prevailing market rates and further recommended that the order for yellow maize, crushed and whole, should be placed with the accused No. 2. The rate quoted by the accused No.2 was as high of Rs. 224/- for yellow maize (whole) and Rs. 229/- for yellow maize (crushed). By false representation, the accused No.1 obtained approval of the then Finance Minister and Chief Minister for placement of the said order on the accused No.2. Thereafter an agreement for supply of 443.70 quintals of yellow (whole) maize at the rate of Rs. 224/- per quintal and 320.64 quintals of yellow (crushed) at the rate of Rs. 229/- per quintal was executed by the accused No.2 and the Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry. The further case of the prosecution is that the then Secretary (Veterinary), Government of Manipur Shri B.R. Basu, drew the attention of the accused No.1 to the wide gap between the lowest tender rate and the rates of the accused No.2 accepted by the Government and the consequential additional expenditure of Rs. 1.45 lakhs to be incurred by the Government for purchase of the maize from the accused No.2. But by order dated 3.6.1975, the accused No. 1 did not accept the recommendation of Shri Basu on the ground that stopping the supply of maize in the mid-way would be detrimental. As a result, about 709 quintals of both whole and crushed yellow maize out of total 764 quintals were supplied by the accused No. 2 and payment received by him accordingly and the Government suffered a loss of Rs. 82,000/- approximately and the accused No.2 correspondently gained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 82,000/-.

(3.) The defence case, on the other hand, was that the rates quoted by the accused No.2 were around the market rates and rates quoted by the other tenderers were far below the market rates. On several occasions lowest tenderers quoting rates for materials lower than the market rates could not supply the materials causing great inconvenience to the Government. Considering the fact that the supply of the maize had to be made to the interior parts of Manipur and the transportation cost was to be incurred by the supplier, the accused No.1 accepted the rates quoted by the accused No.2 after obtaining due approval of the Finance and the Chief Minister. Accordingly, no pecuniary advantage has been gained by the accused No.2 in the transaction and at any rate accused No.1 has acted in good faith and has not official position as a public servant while placing the order for supply of maize with the accused No. 2.