Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 172 (PNJ)

Sardari Lal v. State Of Punjab

2002-02-07

M.L.SINGHAL

body2002
Judgment 1. In case F.I.R. No. 185 dated 23-10-1971 of Police Station, Samrala (Corruption Case No. 7/3/7 of 1982-84-86, Trial No. 19-9-1984). Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 21-10-1986, convicted and sentenced Sham Behari Lal accused as follows :- (a) Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400.00 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (b) Under Section 467, IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. (c) Under Section 471 read with Section 465, IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Sham Behari Lal accused (in case State V/s. Sham Behari Lal and Sardari Lal accused) (a) Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400.00 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months. (b) Under Section 487, IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. (c) Under Section 471 read with Section 465, IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (d) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 467 and 471/465, IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Sardari Lal accused. (a) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 467 and 471/485, IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 or in default of payment of fine to undergorigorous imprisonment for one month. He ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. Not satisfied with his conviction and sentence. Sardari Lal accused has come up in this appeal to this Court. 3. Sham Behari Lal accused also came up in separate appeal to this Court which abated because of the death of Sham Behari Lal. 4. He ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. Not satisfied with his conviction and sentence. Sardari Lal accused has come up in this appeal to this Court. 3. Sham Behari Lal accused also came up in separate appeal to this Court which abated because of the death of Sham Behari Lal. 4. In this appeal, the focus would be to determine whether Sardari Lal entered into any criminal conspiracy with Sham Behari Lal accused, the object of which was to cheat the Government by purchasing goods from bogus firms at inflated rates in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Government. 5. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that in the year 1968-69, Sham Behari Lal accused was working as Principal, I.T.I., Samrala. During that period, he entered into criminal conspriacy with co-accused Sardari Lal in order to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to I.T.I., Samrala by purchasing goods for the I.T.I. by inviting quotations, bills and receipts of bogus firms which either did not exist or they were in (sic) leaque with those firms. In pursuance of that conspiracy Sham Behari Lal produced bills of Rs. 10,660/83 from M/s. Ashu and Company, House No. 728, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh and from M/s. Jindal Sales Corporation , Ludhiana while the market value of the tools purchased was Rs. 4492/70 and thereby caused wrongful loss to I.T.I., Samrala in the sum of Rs. 6169/13. Ex PS/1 to 22 are the bills of M/s. Ashu and Company vide which the tools were purchased by Sham Behari Lal for ITI, Samrala. Ex PS/4 to 22A are the attested copies of the receipts vide which payment was made to this company. 6. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C., Sardari Lal accused admitted that he had supplied cutters to co-accused Sham Behari Lal and at that time he had represented himself as the proprietor of firm M/s. Ashu and Company, Chandigarh. Accused Sham Behari Lal has also admitted the purchase of these tools through these bills though he denied the allegation that the payment was made to his co-accused Sardari Lal. On 19-8-1983, during the trial of the case, accused Sham Behari Lal admitted the correctness of the bills Ex. PS/13 and receipts PS 1/13A. The tools mentioned in the bills Ex. On 19-8-1983, during the trial of the case, accused Sham Behari Lal admitted the correctness of the bills Ex. PS/13 and receipts PS 1/13A. The tools mentioned in the bills Ex. PS/1/22 were purchased by Sham Behari Lal accused for ITI, Samrala from M/s. Ashu and Company, Chandigarh, the proprietor of which was Sardari Lal accused. This fact stood proved that firm M/s. Ashu and Company was not working in house No. 728, Section 22-A, Chandigarh and it was a bogus firm. In this case, the question for consideration is not whether M/s. Ashu and Company was or was not a genuine firm. The question for consideration is whether the quotations given by Sardari Lal who represented himself as the proprietor of M/s. Ashu and Company, were showing genuine rates or inflated rates. In this behalf, there is no evidence that the purchases made by Sham Behari Lal from M/s. Ashu and Company were at inflated rates. Daljit Singh who was Principal, ITI Bassi Pathanan during the year 1968-69 stated that these tools were supplied at inflated rates. He stated that in the year 1968-69, i.e. on 5-10-1968, I.T.I. Bassi Pathanan had purchased reamer fluiting cutters size Nos. 1 and 4 from the market at the rate of Rs. 55.00 and Rs. 70.00 each, respectively. He stated that on 29-3-1969, I.T.I. Bassi Pathanan purchased drill fluiting cutters size Nos. 13 and 14 at the rate of Rs. 161.00 each. These entries are at page Nos. 178 and 222 of stock register Ex. P-7. These very tools were purchased by ITI Samrala from M/s. Ashu and Company vide Bills Ex. PS/17.22 and 12, dated 11-9-1968. Bill Ex. PX.PS/17 shows that one reamer fluiting cutter size No. 1 and one reamer fluiting cutter size No. 4, were purchased for Rs. 407.00. The Bill Ex. PS/12 shows that one drill fluiting cutter size 13 was purchased for Rs. 408.00 and Bill Ex. PS/13 shows that one drill fluiting cutter size No. 14 was purchased for Rs. 424.00. The total of these three Bills is Rs. 1239.00. It is stated by Daljit Singh, PW-19, Principal, ITI Bassi Pathanan that he had purchased these very tools in the year 1968-69 for Rs. 464/75. 7. 408.00 and Bill Ex. PS/13 shows that one drill fluiting cutter size No. 14 was purchased for Rs. 424.00. The total of these three Bills is Rs. 1239.00. It is stated by Daljit Singh, PW-19, Principal, ITI Bassi Pathanan that he had purchased these very tools in the year 1968-69 for Rs. 464/75. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that beyond the statement of Daljit Singh, Principal, ITI Bassi Pathanan, there is no evidence that Sham Behari Lall had purchased tools from Sardari Lal (Proprietor of M/s. Ashu and Company) at inflated rates. It was submitted that the price of the tools varies from manufacture to manufacturer and from place to place. It was also submitted that the tools purchased by ITI Samrala were imported and also new tools while the tools purchased by I.T.I. Bassi Pathanan were old and second hand tools. It was also submitted that the stock register Ex. P7 cannot be relied upon as the original bills which are said to be the basis of the entries in the stock register, have not been produced. Original bills would have shown at what rate I.T.I. Bassi Pathanan had purchased the tools. 8. In my opinion, the prosecution has failed to produce clinching evidence to prove that Sh. Sham Behari Lal had purchased tools for ITI Samrala in the year 1968-69 at inflated rates from M/s. Ashu and Company in conspiracy with Sardari Lal, proprietor M/s. Ashu and Company and Sardari Lal gave him the quotations. If it was an inflated quotation, he should not have accepted it. Sardari Lal quoted him the rate which was accepted by Sham Behari Lal. There is no evidence that there was any conspiracy between Sardari Lal and Sham Behari Lal the object of which was to cheat the Government by the sale of the tools to ITI Samrala at inflated rates. Prosecution should have produced the proprietor of some firm to state that they were selling such tools in the year 1968-69 at a rate which was lower than the rate quoted by Sardari Lal and accepted by Sham Behari Lal. If that had been done, it could have been said that criminal intent might have been there in the mind of Sardari Lal. 9. If that had been done, it could have been said that criminal intent might have been there in the mind of Sardari Lal. 9. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that Sardari Lal was unjustifiably convicted and sentenced by Special Judge, Ludhiana. This appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence passed upon Sardari Lal are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to him.