Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2011 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2011 (12) TMI 759 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Superiority of Synthesized Version vs. Crystal Version of 2/15 MARR Shared Radio Systems.
2. Justification of Price Differentiation between Synthesized and Crystal Versions.
3. Actions and Decisions of Mr. Sukh Ram, Ms. Runu Ghosh, and Mr. Rama Rao.
4. Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Superiority of Synthesized Version vs. Crystal Version of 2/15 MARR Shared Radio Systems:
The court examined whether the synthesized version of the 2/15 MARR system was superior to the crystal version. The synthesized version had several advantages, including frequency control through a synthesizer, duplicate power supply, and low noise amplifier (LNA), order wire facility, and traffic measurement device. These features were not present in the crystal version, which relied on fixed frequency control through crystals, making it less flexible and more maintenance-intensive. The evidence showed that the synthesized version was preferred in the tender specifications and by various officials within the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).

2. Justification of Price Differentiation between Synthesized and Crystal Versions:
The court considered whether the price differentiation between the synthesized and crystal versions was justified. The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) recommended a lower price for the crystal version due to its limitations and the additional features of the synthesized version. The costing exercise undertaken by N.C. Gupta was transparent and based on the DGS&D Rate Contract. Despite this, Ms. Runu Ghosh opposed the price reduction for the crystal version, advocating for price parity, which was ultimately overruled by Mr. Sukh Ram initially but later accepted after ARM's representation.

3. Actions and Decisions of Mr. Sukh Ram, Ms. Runu Ghosh, and Mr. Rama Rao:
- Mr. Sukh Ram: Initially agreed to the price differential but later reversed his decision, directing price parity between the crystal and synthesized versions, which resulted in pecuniary advantage to ARM. The court found that his decision lacked reasonable justification and was not in public interest, leading to his conviction under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Ms. Runu Ghosh: Acted in favor of ARM by opposing the price reduction for the crystal version, advocating for price parity, and maintaining communication with ARM. Her actions were found to be in abuse of her official position, leading to her conviction under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B IPC.
- Mr. Rama Rao: Actively pursued ARM's interests with DoT, including offering concessions and seeking price parity. His actions were found to be in conspiracy with Ms. Runu Ghosh to benefit ARM, leading to his conviction under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC:
The court examined whether there was a criminal conspiracy between Mr. Sukh Ram, Ms. Runu Ghosh, and Mr. Rama Rao. While the evidence pointed to a strong suspicion of conspiracy, it was insufficient to conclusively prove that Mr. Sukh Ram was part of the conspiracy. Therefore, his conviction under Section 120-B IPC was set aside. However, the evidence established a conspiracy between Ms. Runu Ghosh and Mr. Rama Rao to benefit ARM, leading to their conviction under Section 120-B IPC.

Conclusion:
- The conviction of Mr. Sukh Ram under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was affirmed, but his conviction under Section 120-B IPC was set aside.
- The convictions of Ms. Runu Ghosh and Mr. Rama Rao under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B IPC were upheld.
- The appeals of Ms. Runu Ghosh and Mr. Rama Rao were dismissed, and they were directed to surrender and serve their sentences.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates