INDERJIT SINGH TANDI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present four appeals are filed challenging the judgment of conviction dtd. 15/3/2004 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, holding appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh, Gurnam Singh and Raj Kumar guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Ss. 420, 468, 471 IPC. In addition to this, appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh and Gurnam Singh were held guilty of offence under Sec. 13(1) (d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh were also convicted under Sec. 167 IPC as well as the order of sentence of even date, vide which all four appellants were directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 01 year under Sec. 120-B IPC read with Sec. 420 IPC, 02 years R.I. under Sec. 420 IPC, 01 year R.I. under Sec. 471 IPC, 01 year R.I. under Sec. 468 IPC and 02 years R.I. under Sec. 13(1)(d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of PC Act. Apart from this, appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 06 months under Sec. 167 IPC and to pay total fine of Rs.15,000.00 by appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh each, fine of Rs.14,000.00 by appellant Pritam Singh and fine of Rs.10,000.00 by appellant Raj Kumar, in R.C. No.14 datd 12.0201998 under Sec. 120-B IPC read with Sec. 420 IPC and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of PC Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that this Court took suo motu action on a newspaper item dtd. 13/5/1996 captioned as 'Ghost Units eating up subsidy' and while treating the same as writ petition, directed the CBI to conduct an investigation. In pursuance of the directions, CBI registered the aforesaid FIR against unknown officials/officers of Industries Department of Punjab Govt. and some private persons. Later on, during the investigation, it was found that accused Raj Kumar floated four bogus firms by the names of M/s Moon Industries, Chhatti Wind Gate, Amritsar, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation, Amritsar and M/s National Steel Industries and with a view to get benefit of the Industrial Policy and Incentive Code, 1989, commonly known as Subsidy Benefit Scheme, he approached the Industries Department, Amritsar claiming to have purchased machinery worth Rs.6,91,900.00 from M/s Atul Traders, New Delhi for M/s Moon Industries, machinery worth Rs.8,11,500.00 from M/s Charanjit Engineering, Putligarh, Amritsar for M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, machinery worth Rs.3,01,900.00 from M/s Punjab Machine Tools for M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation and machinery worth Rs.1,25,800.00 from M/s Atul Traders for M/s National Steel Industries. He forged false and fictitious documents/bills of purchase of said machinery for all the four firms. He filed applications for subsidy on the basis of forged and fictitious documents. At the relevant time, accused Pritam Singh was the General Manager, while Gurnam Singh and Inderjit Singh Tandi were working as SPIOs respectively in the office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Amritsar. It was their duty to verify the facts stated by the subsidy claimants and to recommend, sanction and disburse the subsidy only to the genuine claimants. As per allegations in the final report, accused Gurnam Singh falsely verified the forged machinery bills and recommended the subsidy qua firms M/s Moon Industries, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries and M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation, while accused Inderjit Singh Tandi verified the bills and recommended the same qua firm M/s National Steel Industries. Accused Pritam Singh further recommended the subsidy and after it was allowed by the District Level Committee, of which he was also Member Secretary, issued the sanctioning letters to accused Raj Kumar and the subsidy amount to the tune of Rs.4,01,980.00 was paid. The CBI thus found that all of them entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, by misusing their official positions as public servants, facilitated the payment of subsidy amounts in favour of bogus firms of Raj Kumar, who was the proprietor. They also found that various firms, from which the machinery was allegedly purchased by accused Raj Kumar on the basis of forged and fictitious bills, were not in existence. After completing the investigation, report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. was filed.

(3.) The trial Court, thereafter, framed the charge against all the accused persons under Sec. 120-B IPC read with Ss. 420, 167, 468, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(1)(d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of PC Act.