ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHWANI Kumar the petitioner herein and his co-accused Kali Ram son of Chandan Singh and Pawan Kumar Gupta son of Hari Ram Gupta were convicted by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 6.6.1988 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 420 of IPC and three months under Section 120-B of IPC. Both the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. All the three convicts thereafter preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed whereas his co-accused Kali Ram and Pawan Kumar Gupta were accepted and were acquitted. However, the conviction and sentence passed under Section 120-B IPC of the petitioner was set aside and he was acquitted of that charge. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that railing was to be provided along with the Western Bank of the sacred tank of Brahm Sarovar situated in Kurukshetra during the year 1980 and the tenders were invited for the installation of GI pipes. Ashwani Kumar, the present petitioner was the contractor and the tender of the petitioner was accepted by the Executive Engineer, PWD B and R Branch being the lowest in rates. The work was to be executed under the supervision of Pawan Kumar Gupta, Sub Divisional Officer of the said department (since acquitted). According to the said agreement, the contractor was to utilise GI pipes of 'B' grade. While executing the work, the petitioner utilised GI pipes of inferior quality. An anonymous complaint was made to the State Vigilance Bureau Department, Haryana and the present petitioner was booked. I have heard Mr. R.M. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance have also gone through the record.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana while refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was a contractor, who instead of using GI pipes as per contract, has used inferior quality of GI pipes and as such does not deserve any leniency so far as quantum of sentence is concerned.