9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Attention Motion was moved in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1981 alleging large scale fraud, irregularities and illegalities committed in the execution of jungle clearance work by the engineers and contractors in various divisions of Nellore District during 1978-1981. Consequent upon the Call Attention Motion, the Government directed the then Deputy Engineer-in-Chief. Shri L.R. Kapoor PW. to examine and inquire into the allegations. He visited Nellore and after conducting a preliminary inquiry submitted his report on 17.4.1981 pointing out various illegalities and irregularities committed by the Engineers. The Secretary, Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh also directed the then Chief Technical Examiner. Mohd. Rahamathulla khan PW, to make an inquiry in to the allegations made on the floor of the assembly during the Call Attention Motion. It further transpires that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 313 Irrigation and Power Department dated 20.7.1981. Ex. P1. appointing Shri N.V. M. Krishna, the then Chief Engineer, for carrying out departmental enquiry into the works allegedly carried out in three Divisions, namely, Nellore No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts therein. In this Court, the criminal appeals arising out of that case are Criminal Appeal Nos. 72 - 74/93 etc. All these cases relate to Gandipalem Project Division. Conviction and sentence imposed in CC. 1/86 and the connected cases before the Special Court, led to the filing of 44 appeals in the High Court by 71 appellants therein. The Criminal appeals held by them, in this Court are Criminal Appeal Nos 128, 130/93 etc. All these relate to Nellore North Division. In respect of Nellore South Division. 68 appellants preferred criminal appeals in the High Court against their conviction and sentence as recorded by the Special Judge and those cases from the batch of Criminal Appeal Nos. 99-101/93 etc, in this Court. The Contractors had filed separate appeals in the High Court and Criminal Appeal No. 153/93 and 170-71/93 etc, in this Court arise out of the appeals filed by the contractors. 3. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted before us that since the material facts, nature of evidence and the questions of law are similar in all set of appeals, for the sake of convenience, four representative appeals, one from each of the three Divisions, besides an appeal by the contracto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Nellore Irrigation Circle only. The work of the clearance of the jungle is normally required to be undertaken departmentally through Luscars, since it is treated as maintenance work, but it is the case of the prosecution that in these cases work for clearance of jungles was allegedly allotted to contractors on nomination basis in 1979-80 but without any such work having actually been done it was represented that jungles had been cleared and payments made to the contractors, which amount was in fact misappropriated by the departmental officials and the contractors. The total expense involved was ₹ 1,15,663 for 12 + 1 works in the Nellore North Division ; ₹ 1,95,108 for 17 works in the Nellore South Division and ₹ 26,068 for 8 works in the Gandipalem Project Division. According to the prosecution case, the Executive Engineers were not authorised to allot work on nomination basis to the contractors without inviting tenders but with a view to bring each of the 'contracts' within their pecuniary jurisdiction, they 'broke' the contracts into smaller amounts and without any work of jungle clearance having been actually undertaken payments for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of jungle clearance allegedly done in Gandipalem Project Division. In his report, while dealing with jungle clearance work of the Kanpur Canal he stated: While the necessity or otherwise for jungle clearance cannot be established at this distant date, more so without inspections of the sites of works it appears that there was no justification for giving the above works on nomination. Even in the report accompanying the estimates, the urgency for the execution of works has also not been explained. Jungle clearance for the following works was done by the Executive Engineer, Gandipalem Project Division: 1. Jungle clearance along the alignment of Thikavatapadu branch channel from 3.8 km to 8.8 km - Divisional Register No. 72 of 1980-81 -₹ 9800. 2. Jungle clearance along the alignment of Ambapuram Branch Channel from km. 2.7 to 5.6 km Divisional Register No. 347/KC of 1979-80-₹ 81.00. The above two estimates are for conducting site surveys of the branch channels of the Kanpur Canal Scheme. Jungle clearance was done before doing surveys and levelling to enable the preparation of plans and estimates for taking up the execution of the said works. The estimate in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cognizance ; (ii) Secondly, that you the above named A-1 to A-5 herein being the public servants employed as formerly Executive Engineers, Deputy Executive Engineers and Section Officer of Gandhiupalem project division respectively during the period between 1979-80 at the works pot i.e. on the banks of Kanpur canal from mile 15/0 to 15/4 as mentioned in charge No. 1 above by corrupt and illegal means in abuse of your official position as such public servants obtained for yourselves pecuniary advantage to the extent of ₹ 2,869 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and within my cognizance: (iii) Thirdly, that you the above named accused Nos. 1 to 5 at about the same time, place and date as mentioned in charge No. 1 above cheated the Govt. of A.P. with regard to the work of prickly pier jungle clearance at the banks of Kanpur canal to a tune of ₹ 2,869 and that you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 120 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance ; (iv) And fourthly, that you the above named A-1 to A-5 alongwith deceased D.B. Duggi Reddy at abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir inspection of the site in 1984 they had noticed signs of the removal of prickly pier jungle on the left bank of Kanpur canal. The prosecution has led no evidence to show that after 1979 any work had been done for removal of prickly pier jungle on the banks of Kanpur canal and therefore from the evidence of PW 4, it follows that 'some' work of clearance of prickly pier jungle at the banks of Kanpur canal had been undertaken prior to the inspection of the site by the inspecting team. It was rather impossible to have found out in 1984 whether any work or the extent of it, had been done in fact for clearance of the prickly pier jungle in 1979-80 i.e. 4/5 years ago and PW 7 Shri Raja Rao. Commissioner of Project, rightly admitted that in case of jungle clearance after the completion of work, it is not possible to know either the quantum of work or the extent of jungle clearance by site inspection carried out after some time. 14. So far as the prosecution case that false and fictitious records relating to the preparation of estimates, allotment of work on nomination basis, drawing up of the agreements and making payments is concerned, we find that there are ample admissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the prickly pier jungle on the banks of the canal, both right and left, which is obstructing the jeep track . Whether or not the clearance of jungle on the right bank was, necessary for removing obstruction of the jeep track was immaterial and what was relevant was whether the jungle clearance work had been undertaken or not. Making payment for clearance of jungle on the right bank, which was not necessary may give rise to an inference that the departmental officials had been negligent and did not act in the best interest of the department but from that action of the officials, it is not possible to draw the conclusion that the official committed the offence alleged against them. The prosecution evidence reveals that the clearance of prickly pier jungle on the left and the right bank was also undertaken with a view to properly maintain the canal banks and to prevent their breaches during the rainy season besides facilitating the removal of obstruction of the jeep track. The High Court conjecturised while observing that since clearance of the right bank was not necessary for clearing the view of the jeep track its clearance was not done . This is against the weight of evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot give rise to an irresistible conclusion that the engineers of the department did not visit the site for actual verification. The vagueness regarding showing nature of the work or its details or mentioning that in some places the jungle to be cleared was Tight jungle and not prickly pier jungle in the measurement book also cannot lead to a conclusion, much less an irresistible one, that the wrong mentioning had been made in the agreement regarding the nature of the work because A-3 had not visited the site while verifying the actual clearance of jungle on 7.7.79. In this regard the statement of PW 11 Shri Krishnamoorthy, who admitted in his deposition that he had scrutinised the bill relating to jungle clearance work of Kanpur Canal from reaches 15/0 to 1.5/4 miles on 27.8.70 assume significance particularly because PW 11 had also put his initials in the measurement book, Ex. P6 at page 32 relating to the relevant bill. There is, therefore, no acceptable material on the record from which a conclusive inference may be drawn to the effect that the measurements found recorded in the measurement book Ex. P6 had not been actually taken at the site of the work but were manipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had failed to deduct the area occupied by the rough stone inlet. No evidence was led to show that the rough inlet was in existence prior to 1979 on the bank of Kanpur canal. The mere fact that the investigating agency in 1984, after a period of five years, found that a rough stone inlet was in existence was inconsequential particularly since PW 12 Shri K. Rammohan Rao admitted during his cross-examination that he could not say as to when the rough stone inlet found on the left bank had in fact been constructed. There was, thus, no acceptable material on the record to establish the existence of the rough stone inlet prior to or in 1979, when jungle clearance work was done and no adverse inference could have been drawn against the appellants on account of the existence of rough stone inlet on the left bank of the canal in 1984. It was the fact situation existing in 1979-80 which was relevant and not the situation as existing in 1984. 17. One other circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution against the appellants is that jungle clearance work is only maintenance work, but, it had been allegedly allotted on nomination basis to the selected contractor, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing of reasons for entrusting the work on nomination basis upto the value of ₹ 20,000 cannot be used as a circumstance of an incriminating nature against the appellants to establish any 'dishonest' intention on their part in view of the directions issued by the superior officers to take up the work urgently because of the ensuing monsoon season. Even the splitting up of work into parts, so as to allot it on nomination basis to bring it within the authorised powers of the executive engineers, which was against the Codal provisions and the circulars issued on the subject from time to time cannot be said to have been done with the necessary, dishonest intention . In our opinion, whereas the appellants are established to have violated codal provisions besides departmental circulars and instructions regarding nomination of contractors and allotment of work to them, yet, those circumstances cannot be said to be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants or connect them with the crime alleged against them. In fairness to learned Counsel for the appellant we must observe that he did not challenge the findings regarding administrative lapses and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of investigation can be used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made, except for the purpose of contradicting a witness as provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Admittedly, Ex. P 11 has not been used for any of the purposes envisaged by Section 145 of the Evidence Act but as a substantive piece of evidence. The opinion of the courts below that the statement contained in Ex. P 11 was not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. on the ground that PW 12 was an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act and his report Ex. P 11 submitted to the investigating officer was as such not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. is clearly erroneous as PW 12 does not qualify as an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Even in his own deposition, he has no where stated about his technical 'qualifications', expertise or experience in this particular field to render expert opinion . There is no material on the record to show that PW 12 possessed any particular skill which entitled him to draw conclusions relevant to the matter entrusted to him by the investigating officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper. That because of the actions of the appellants in breach of codal provisions, instructions and procedural safeguards, the State may have suffered financially, particularly by allotment of work on nomination basis without inviting tenders, but those acts of omission and commission by themselves do not establish the commission of criminal offences alleged against them. We may reiterate that once the report, Ext. P 11, is ruled out of consideration as inadmissible, then it is not safe to rely on the mere impressions of the witnesses to hold the appellants guilty of the offences alleged against them. The prosecution has failed to establish that in 1979-80, no work of jungle clearance in the Gandipalem Project Division was undertaken and that false and fabricated documents were prepared with a view to misappropriate government funds. The prosecution has not even been able to establish that less work of jungle clearance was undertaken but payment was shown to have been made for excessive work and some amount out of the payments made for the work were thus misappropriated by the appellants in connivance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 13,164 and thereby committed the offence punishable Under Section. 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and within my cognizance. (iii) Thirdly that you the above named Accused Nos. 1 to 4 herein at about the same time, place and date as mentioned in charge No. 1 above cheated the Govt. of A.P. with regard to the work of clearing and uprooting the jungle at North Mopur large tank from 1800 M to 2000 M to a tune of ₹ 13,164 and that you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section. 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and within my cognizance. (iv) And, fourthly, that you the above named accused Nos. 1 to 4 herein along with deceased D.B. Duggi Reddy at about the same date, time and place as stated in charge No. 1 above being the public servants and contractor respectively of P.W. Department of the Govt. of A.P. wilfully and with intent to defraud the Govt. of A.P. created false records with regard to the work mentioned in charge No. 1 above which belonged to the Government and you all thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 477A read with Section 34 of IPC and within my cognizance. 24. After trial, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Court and each of them is further sentenced to pay additional fine of ₹ 1000 (rupees one thousand) under each count in addition to the one imposed by the Court below under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 5(2) read with 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in default to suffer R.l. for three months under each count. Time granted for payment of fine is one month from today. As regard the sentence to be inflicted on the contractor, A4 who has been charged and tried for the offences along with Al to A3, who are Government employees the same yardstick cannot be used. With the active connivance and A4 alone, Al to A3 have committed the offences and A4 assisted them by subscribing himself to the agreement and other documents. So, A4 must be dealt with severely. Hence, A4 is sentenced for the offences under Section 120-B 420 read with 34 and 477A read with 34 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count and the sentence of fine imposed by the learned Special Judge under Section 420 read with 34 IPC is confirmed. All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 26. The High Court then arrived at the following conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contractor before issuance of work order; (iv) that incorrect measurements were recorded in the measurement book to cancel the extent of actual work done; (v) that A2 and A3 made endorsements on the estimate documents without conducting actual verification at the spot; (vi) that no proper estimate for earth work or for filling of the pits was prepared; (vii) that the anticipated credit for stumps as shown was wrong. 30. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution attempted to establish that no work of jungle clearance was done and that Ex. P3, P4, P7 and P8 were manipulated and fabricated with dishonest intention of misappropriating funds of the Government. Reliance was placed on the statement of PWs 11, 12 and 13 in support of the circumstances that no jungle clearance work was done and that the modus operands adopted by appellants to give the work on nomination basis ignoring the codal provisions and instructions on the subject was only to cover the fraud committed by the appellants in connivance with the contractor. PW 11 deposed that jungle clearance work is not of an urgent nature implying thereby that it could not have been allotted wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and the very fact that work had been done shows that the prosecution allegation that no work was done has remained unsubstantiated. So far as allotment of work on nomination basis is concerned, the prosecution does not dispute that urgent works could be allotted on nomination basis. The Chief Engineer admittedly had issued instructions to have the jungles cleared in view of expected monsoon and therefore the urgency of the matter, is quite obvious. There is also no reliable evidence available on the record to show that work done was less than the work paid for as is alleged by the prosecution. 32. The report Ex. P10 submitted by PW 8 which is the sheet anchor of the prosecution case, for the reasons which we have already given while dealing with Criminal Appeal of the Gandipalem Project Division not admissible in evidence. All the reasons given therein apply to Ex. P10 with equal force and we need not repeat the same. Even otherwise report Ex. P10, prepared after visiting the site in 1984 to demonstrate the position as was supposed to be existing at the site in 1979-80 is hardly of any value. 33. According to the prosecution case, the extent of work shown to have been done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Executive Engineer can entrust the work on nomination basis costing ₹ 20000. 36. That the appellants ignored certain other instructions on the subject cannot lead to an irresistible inference that they did so with dishonest intention only, 37. That the appellants adopted a wrong mode and procedure in making two separate items in the estimate for clearing the jungle above the ground level and for uprooting the stumps has not been accepted even by the Board of Chief Engineers vide its proceedings dated 21.7.84. May be, as alleged by the prosecution clearing of the jungle and up-rooting of stumps may be one operation and making two separate payments, that is one for clearance of jungle above the ground level and the other for up- rooting and removing the stumps may be objectionable and against the codal provisions but in the absence of any evidence to show that two separate payments were in fact not made to the contractor it is not possible to say that the charge of conspiracy has been established. The statement of PW 20 Superintending Engineer who admitted that separate payments for up-rooting the stumps of Juliflora are also permissible under Rule 111(2)(f) of Standard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontractor who has filed a separate appeal, is that with dishonest intention of misappropriating Government funds, the accused floated work called clearance of Juliflora jungle and up-rooting stumps having width of 50 cms. to 100 cms. on the reach 0/0 to 1450 metres on Krakatur small tank and without execution of that work misappropriated an amount of ₹ 5169 allegedly paid to the contractor A5 by cheque by entering into a criminal conspiracy with him. The matter like the cases of Gandipalem Project and Nellore South Division came to be entrusted for investigation, after the Call Attention Motion was moved in the State Assembly in 1981, alleging large scale bungling and embezzlement of government funds in various Division of Nellore District for clearance of jungles etc. to the ACB. We have already referred to the history of the case in the beginning of the judgment and need not repeat the same. 41. PW 7 Sh. L.R. Kapoor, Commissioner Command Area Development, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh who was appointed to enquire into the allegations made on the floor of the House after holding an inquiry made the report in which he expressed his opinion that jungle clearance work ought to hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oor and PW 19 Shri N.V. M. Krishna who had inquired into the matter before the case was entrusted to the ACB have categorically admitted at the trial that they had not visited the site in question at the time of conducting the inquiry. According to Sh. L.R. Kapoor, PW 7 not only he did not visit the site in question but he did not even examine a single witness at the time of conducting inquiry relating to the work at the site. The prosecution has alleged and tried to establish that there had been flagrant violations of the codal provisions in regard to preparation and sanctioning of estimates, nomination of the agency and allotment of work on nomination basis, preparation of the bills and passing of the same pursuant to an agreement wrongly drawn up between the parties. According to the courts below, the commencement of the work by the contractor before drawing up the agreement between the parties exposed the criminal conspiracy between the accused. It appears to us that the courts below like in the case arising out of Gandipalem Project Division and Nellore South Division allowed suspicion to take the place of proof to convict the appellants. No evidence has been led by the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itnesses in defence. The trial court at the conclusion of the trial held that no work with respect to clearance of Juliflora jungle up-rooting of the stumps was undertaken at the site and the amount was misappropriated by the accused and convicted and sentenced the appellants to various terms of imprisonment and fine in the year 1979 during the inspection made in 1984 ? The answer to us appears clearly to be in the negative. Even the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer admitted during their cross- examination that it was not possible to know in 1984 if luliflora jungle actually existed at the site in question in 1979-80 or not. We fail to understand as to why alter the case had been entrusted to the ACB in 1982 itself they took no steps to visit the site and ascertain about the situation of the site till 1984. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that there were jungles of Juliflora on the bank in 1979. There also does not appear to be any justification for the prosecution to now allege that the area from which jungle had been cleared in 1979 was less than what was actually entered in the measurement book on the basis of the site inspection carried out in 1984. The om ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umps up-rooted, nothing would remain as evidence on the soil to show the extent to which the jungle was cleared 5-6 years earlier. It would not even be possible to say whether there was any necessity for jungle clearance at that earlier point of time. Much capital was sought to be made by learned Counsel for the State of including the area of revetment as a part of the area from where jungle was shown to have been cleared to urge that since there could be no growth of jungle on the revetment, the measurements were falsely recorded and the criminality had got exposed. We cannot agree. In this connection we find that the statement of PW 13 is somewhat relevant. He admitted that if the branches of Juliflora spread over the revetment area than that has also to be cleared and the area over the revetment will also have to be calculated for determining the total area of jungle clearance. He went on to say that in a disturbed revetment there is even otherwise the possibility of the growth of Juliflora. Since, PW 7 Mr. L.R. Kapoor who had visited the site during 4.4.1981 to 6.4.81 for conducting preliminary inquiry stated in his report that it was not possible to find out during the inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n so far as the appellants are concerned. In our opinion none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution connect the appellants with the crime alleged against them. The circumstances have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the circumstances taken collectively cannot be said to be compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and totally incompatible with their innocence. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not established the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Their appeals therefore succeed and are allowed and their conviction and sentence are set aside. Fine shall be refunded to the appellants. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1993 (NELLORE SOUTH DIVISION - CONTRACTOR'S APPEAL) 45. This appeal has been filed by the contractor A4, and arises out of Crl. Case No. 9/87 (High Court Appeal No. 184/89). It relates to clearance of Juliflora jungle from 0 to 1 mile including removal of 14800 stumps in Nellore South Division. The jungle clearance work was allotted to the appellant by the Executive Engineer on nomination basis. On completion of the work, the appellant submitted his bill and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site in 1979-80. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the report of inspection submitted by the Chief Engineer on 29.7.79 according to which jungle clearance work had actually been done at the site and urged that this evidence completely demolished the prosecution case. 47. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the courts below against the appellant are: (i) that work of clearance of Juliflora jungle and uprooting of stumps was falsely allotted and without any work being done a cheque for ₹ 15643 was given to the contractor which was encashed by him; (ii) that there has been flagrant violations of provisions of PWD Codes etc. in the matter of preparation of estimate; accord of sanction; drawing up of the agreement and allotment of work on nomination basis to the appellant; (iii) that in the measurement book the area where work had been done was recorded by the officials in excess to help the appellant, without having actually visited the site; (iv) that the allotment of work by nomination was irregular and in violation of codal rules. Major work had been split up so as to bring up the allotment of work within the pecuniary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Kodavalur tank for the last about 12-13 years deposed at the trial that about 8-9 years ago he had seen some officials getting jungle cleared on the banks of that channel by engaging coolies. The evidence of this witness, thus, also shows that jungle clearance work was being done at the site in question in 1979-80 and to that extent PW 21 corroborates the testimony of Assistant Engineer P 17. It is nobody's case that jungle clearance work was done in 1979-80 through departmental lascars and, therefore, the legitimate inference to be drawn from the evidence of PW 21 is that jungle clearance work was being done at the site in 1979-80 through the appellant. PW 18 is a bus conductor. He has a hut on the Northern bank of the channel since 1977. According to him villagers used to cut and take away Karratumma plants growing on the channel banks. He denied any knowledge as to whether contractors of the PWD department had cleared Karratumma plants growing on the banks of Kodavalur tank supply channel during 1979-80. As against this material, is the evidence of PW 8 who visited the site in 1984 and stated in his report that no work of jungle clearance had been done in 1979 as there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atur small tank. 52. The prosecution case against the contractor is that he is a nonexistent person. According to the prosecution there was no such contractor who had been allotted work on nomination basis and all the documents purporting to have been signed by the appellant as a contractor had been fabricated by the engineers because the contractor was an unknown and fictitious person. It is alleged that the name of the contractor as appearing in the order of nomination, allotment letter and the agreement is fictitious and not correct. Both the courts appear to have readily accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant. We fail to see any justification for such a conviction. If the appellant had nothing to do with the contract, how could he be convicted for allegedly not undertaking the work with which he, according to the prosecution case itself had no concern. In the charge sheet and the charge framed against the appellant, the name of the appellant has been given as the contractor who was alleged to be a co-conspirator with the Engineers and Section officers to misappropriate government funds by receiving payment for doing no jungle clearance work. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the authority of the Superintending Engineer in the matter of execution of work and spending of grants besides violation of codal provisions and breach of departmental instructions and circulars. He recommended departmental action against the accused. However, before the accused could be proceeded departmentally, the case was entrusted to ACB and the accused were tried by the learned special judge and were convicted and sentenced. Their appeals, except for reduction of sentence, failed in the High Court. Both the courts found that grave irregularities were committed by the officers concerned in the matter of allotment of work and the method followed by them was in violation of the codal provisions departmental instructions and circulars. The courts below have also found that the officials had committed serious administrative irregularities and lapses. Reference has been made both by the trial court and the High Court to the codal provisions i.e. A.P. PWD code, A.P. Financial Code etc. and the circulars and instructions issued from time to time which were respected in their breach by the official accused. We have not found it possible to take a view different than the one taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
