Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2068 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Virendra Singh Ranawat

2011-09-23

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the learned Special Judges (Anti Corruption Cases) whereby respondents have been discharged from the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. Two of the respondents O.P. Purohit and Prakash Raj Shah have died during the pendency of the revisions filed against them. 2. Since in all these revision petitions common question is involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the convenient disposal of these revision petitions, facts of S.B. Criminal Petition No. 543/2002 are taken. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Education, wrote a letter to the Director General (Anti Corruption) stating therein that the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner invited tenders for the supply of different articles and in pursuance of purchase order, articles supplied were of lower quality and the concerned purchase committee and technical committee have misused their posts and the order has been given on the. higher rate and 90% of the amount was released to the concerned firm without supply of the articles. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial Court has framed the charges as, alleged. 5. The Learned trial Court has discharged the petitioner from the above charges and hence this petition has been filed. 6. The main contention of the State is that the learned trial Court should have framed charges against the respondents. It was the duty of the non-petitioners that approved samples should be sent to the concerned Zila Parishads in time, which were not sent in time and 90% of the money has been released to firms without supply of the articles and the articles were also of below quality. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and they have been rightly discharged. 8. As regards non-petitioner No. 1 Virendra Singh Ranawat, the allegation against him is that he is the member of the purchase committee. Master samples have been approved by the committee which were to be sent to the concerned Zila Parishads but the respondent willfully had not sent these samples to the concerned Zila Parishads and hence conspired for the offence. As regards non-petitioner No. 1 Virendra Singh Ranawat, the allegation against him is that he is the member of the purchase committee. Master samples have been approved by the committee which were to be sent to the concerned Zila Parishads but the respondent willfully had not sent these samples to the concerned Zila Parishads and hence conspired for the offence. It has also been alleged against respondent No. 1 that samples which were sent to the concerned respective Zila Parishads has to be verified by the purchase committee but it has been verified only by O.P. Purohit. Hence, the only allegation against respondent No. 1 is that he sent the samples to the respective Zila Parishads, but sent it with delay. This only could not be termed as criminal conspiracy and the learned trial Court has rightly held that the delay on the part of respondent No. 1 could not be termed as criminal conspiracy. 9. It is not the case of the prosecution that the samples which were sent to the concerned Zila Parishads are not up to the mark and hence if the samples had been approved only by O.P. Purohit, then it had no bearing on the case and it cannot be termed as offence. 10. Further, the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Shri Lalit. K. Panwar has also stated that no illegality or irregularity has been done in purchase at the Director Level. 11. It has also been stated that non-petitioner No. 1 is member of purchase committee but it is not so. The learned trial Court has specifically stated that non-petitioner No. 1 was the technical member of the committee and the recommendations which were done for the purchase by the committee were not signed by respondent No. 1 Virendra Singh Ranawat. 12. Looking at the above, the learned trial Court has rightly discharged respondent No. 1 from the alleged offences. 13. It has also been stated that the articles which were supplied are not of standard quality. Samples have been taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison on 18.1.1992 whereas, admittedly the articles were supplied on 1.9.1989. Hence, after long lapse of time, F.S.L. report is of no value. 13. It has also been stated that the articles which were supplied are not of standard quality. Samples have been taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison on 18.1.1992 whereas, admittedly the articles were supplied on 1.9.1989. Hence, after long lapse of time, F.S.L. report is of no value. At the same time, report goes to show that the samples and articles which were supplied are not of similar wood but whether the supplied articles are sub-standard, has not been stated in the F.S.L. report. At the same time, the committee has been constituted to verify the quality of the supplied articles and it has been specifically stated in the inspection report that some of the articles are damaged, which have been changed by the concerned firm. Hence, the allegation that the goods which were supplied are of not standard quality, is baseless. 14. It has also been alleged that 90% of the amount has been released prior to the supply of the goods. During investigation, no such direction has been placed before the Court that there was any bar on the payment of the articles, rather the learned trial Court has considered that according to the Government order dated 12.12.1980 it was directed that 90% of the money should be released on receipt of R.R. Hence, there is no illegality done in releasing the said amount. 15. This is not the case of the prosecution that the goods, according to the order, have not been supplied, rather it has been stated that the goods are supplied with delay and the amount has been released prior to supply. Be that may be the case, it cannot be termed as any offence as according to purchase order, the goods were supplied and no loss to the public exchequer has done. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that other members of the purchase committee or technical committee have not been impleaded as accused and according to the direction of the State Government, the Collector also has to constitute the committee which was never constituted. This is not the case of the prosecution that the low quality samples were sent to the concerned Zila Parishads. 17. This is not the case of the prosecution that the low quality samples were sent to the concerned Zila Parishads. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 901 . 18. The Learned trial Court has considered all material facts and has rightly came to the conclusion that no charges should have been framed against any of the accused-non-petitioner. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and all the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed 19. Therefore, all, these revision petitions are hereby dismissed.Revision petitions dismissed. *******