Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2066 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Madan Lal Mehta

2011-09-23

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2007 whereby the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were discharged from the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer Shri D.K. Gandhi invited tender for LDPI Films for Narmada Canal Project. The tenders were to be opened on 15.1.1996 but without any reason, date was changed to 12.2.1996. Two firms gave tenders and with the. direction of the Superintending Engineer, work orders were issued to the firms. After investigation, it has been concluded that with the connivance of the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Junior Engineer and Firms, they conspired to take the articles on higher rates and by this they caused loss of Rs. 5,98,000/- to the department. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents and others. The present respondents have been discharged of the offences aforesaid. Hence, this revision petition. case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the 4. The main contention of the State is that the respondent No. 2, in connivance with others, gave contract to M/s. Yashpal and Sons, Delhi on a very high rate and the respondent No. 1 accepted the tender whereas this firm did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of the tender and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the store-keepers who has taken the articles without verifying the quality and hence they should be charged with other accused persons. 5. The next contention of the State is that the learned trial Court has not considered the material on record properly. 6. Looking to the impugned order and the material on record, it reveals that the allegation against the respondent No. 2 is that he accepted the tenders but bare perusal of F.I.R. goes to show that the process of tender was started by the then Executive Engineer Shri D.K. Gandhi and the date was also changed by him and when the tenders were in process, the respondent No. 1 joined the particular post and he just opened the tenders which were already invited by Shri Gandhi. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 1 remained posted there only for 47 days and it has also been noticed by the trial Court that on the direction of Superintending Engineer work order was given to M/s. Yashpal and Sons and otherwise rates of M/s. Yashpal and Sons were the lowest. Hence, there is no evidence against the respondent No. 1 that he was involved in any conspiracy. The learned trial Court has also considered that two tenders were of similar rates and after the direction of superiors, work order was given. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court regarding discharging of respondent No. 1. 7. For the respondent No. 2, the charge against him is that he ordered for 4 tons of LDPI Films. Ordering of a particular article cannot be termed as conspiracy and it has been specifically stated that there superior authorities only sanctioned for 21/2 tons, which was purchased according to the Rules. It has also been specifically stated that the film, which was ordered,, was totally utilised by the department. Hence, there is no evidence that the respondent No. 2 had in any way misused his office or he had taken any undue profit from the above transaction. Hence, he has also been rightly discharged from the offences. 8. So far as the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they are admittedly store-keepers. They had nothing to do with the process of tender or giving purchase order of any article. The allegation against them is that they had not verified the quality of articles. 9. There is no evidence that the material which was supplied was of lower quality and it has not been investigated that it was the duty of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to verify the quality. It has been stated that the ISI Certificate was with the articles and hence articles were taken by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 10. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******