1979 (9) TMI 212 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of appellants under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Prosecution case and defense stand.
3. Findings of the Special Judge.
4. Findings of the Judicial Commissioner.
5. Arguments presented by appellants' counsel.
6. Analysis of evidence and final judgment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of Appellants:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, Panaji, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The specific sections included Sections 120B(1), 420, 468, 471, and 109 of IPC, and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentences ranged from rigorous imprisonment for two years to fines, with default sentences of additional imprisonment.

2. Prosecution Case and Defense Stand:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to cheat the government by presenting inflated bills for the deepening and widening of the Kumbarjua canal, resulting in excess payments. The defense argued that the work was executed in good faith, with A-1 claiming he acted under the assurance of the Secretary, I.L.D., and A-2 stating the bills were based on the volume of work done, not labor engaged.

3. Findings of the Special Judge:
The Special Judge found that:
- The work was started by A-2 before the tender was accepted.
- A-1 was directed to execute the work departmentally, and concurrence from P.W.D. was obtained.
- A-2 carried out the work with his own labor, and no muster roll was maintained by A-1.
- A-1 signed and forwarded summaries prepared by A-2 for payment.
- Muster rolls and registers were prepared after the work's completion to support false bills.

The Special Judge concluded that the appellants conspired to cheat the government by presenting false bills, resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 4,41,249.75.

4. Findings of the Judicial Commissioner:
The Judicial Commissioner upheld the findings of the Special Judge except for the actual amount spent, which he determined was Rs. 76,247.43 based on entries in books recovered from A-2's house. The conviction and sentences were confirmed.

5. Arguments Presented by Appellants' Counsel:
The appellants' counsel argued that:
- The tender submitted by A-2 was accepted by the government.
- The work executed was worth the amount paid, and the findings of the lower courts were based on conjectures.
- The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the number of laborers employed was less than stated in the summaries.
- The discrepancies in the number of laborers were based on witnesses' impressions long after the work was executed.

6. Analysis of Evidence and Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that:
- The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the number of laborers employed was less than stated.
- The findings of the lower courts were based on suspicion and irregularities but not on concrete evidence.
- The disparity in the figures of work done and the amount paid could not be conclusively proven to indicate fraud.

The Supreme Court concluded that the charge could not be sustained due to the lack of proof of the falsity of the entries in the documents. The appeals were accepted, and the conviction and sentences were set aside, acquitting the appellants of all charges.