Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 112 (BOM)

Arun Hanuman Takle v. Union of India

2012-01-17

J.H.BHATIA

body2012
Judgment The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.56 of 2011 registered with Silvassa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467,471, 409, 120B of IPC and under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents. 3. Admittedly, the accused was working as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department of the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa since May, 2009. Before that, he was posted in different departments in that capacity. During the relevant period 2010-11, he was Store in charge of the Electricity Department. On 6.3.2011, the Superintending Engineer (Power), Shri B.M. Mehta, lodged a written report with the police to the effect that the accused/applicant, having misused his position, had indulged in forgery of certain documents, such as, supply orders, inspection notes by making forged signatures of the Executive Engineer on those documents and had cheated the Administration for wrongful gain by getting debit notes cleared during the period from 2004-05 to 2009 and on that basis huge payments were made to the suppliers, though the suppliers had not actually supplied any material as per the orders. According to prosecution, the applicant had issued forged documents on the basis of which the Chief Controller of Accounts had issued the debit notes and the debit notes were collected from the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Collectorate, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and thus, the payments running into more than Rs.35 crore were made. Out of that, the applicant had received huge share from the said suppliers. It is specifically alleged that in the year 2008, certain orders were placed with Somex India Pvt. Ltd. for supply of certain goods to the Electricity Department under the forged supply orders. The applicant had forged the signatures of the Executive Engineer on those orders and on that basis, further process was completed and the payments were released to the tune of about Rs.13 crore. 4. The applicant was arrested on 7.4.2011. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Admittedly, handwriting expert's report is not yet available to confirm that the signatures on the supply orders or inspection notes purporting to be of the Executive Engineer were in the handwriting of the present applicant. 4. The applicant was arrested on 7.4.2011. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Admittedly, handwriting expert's report is not yet available to confirm that the signatures on the supply orders or inspection notes purporting to be of the Executive Engineer were in the handwriting of the present applicant. Even though, according to prosecution, the applicant had cheated the Administration for wrongful gain by getting debit notes cleared during the period from 2004-05 to 2009, it is an admitted fact that the applicant was not posted in the Electricity Department prior to May 2009. During that period, he was posted in other departments. He was posted in the Electricity Department as a Junior Engineer and Store Keeper for the first time in May 2009. Therefore, he could not have any concern with the misappropriations or frauds played in the departments during 2004 to 2009. 5. As per the prescribed procedure for procurement of materials, any procurement proposal on Office Note initiated by the Junior Engineer (Stores) is routed through the Deputy Engineer (ASW) and Commercial Accountant to the Executive Engineer to place orders. After assent of the Executive Engineer, the order is placed with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D). DGS&D is a supply authority having registered vendors for supply of electric material to the Electricity Department of the Union Territories. The orders for supplies are placed by the Executive Engineer or the Authorised Officer of the Department and the consignee is also the Executive Engineer or the Deputy Engineer (ASW). After placing an order, DGS&D Authority sends its Inspecting Officers (Inspector) to the vendors' work place to inspect the quality and quantity of the material for which order is placed. The Inspector prepares inspection certificates with inspection and marks logo of the particular material to be supplied. Accordingly, the supplier is expected to supply the ordered material to the consignee, who is the Executive Engineer. The Junior Engineer (Stores) receives the material as per the order and issue initial acknowledgment of the receipt of material to the transporter. The consignee, after verification of the stocks, issues the inspection notes duly signed by him before it is given to the supplier with a covering letter. The payment is made by issuance of debit notes to the concerned department. 6. The consignee, after verification of the stocks, issues the inspection notes duly signed by him before it is given to the supplier with a covering letter. The payment is made by issuance of debit notes to the concerned department. 6. The Sessions Court noted that in respect of the order for supplies to Somex India Pvt. Ltd., the supply orders are stated to be issued in the month of July 2008. The inspection notes recording verification of specification and quality of goods to be supplied was done by the officer of the Directorate of Quality Assurance, New Delhi in the month of June 2010. Thereafter, Somex India Pvt. Ltd. is shown to have booked its goods with Verma Goods Carrier in July 2010 for being supplied to the Electricity Department. From this, it appears that when the proposal was initiated in the year 2008, the applicant was not posted as a Junior Engineer (Stores) in the Electricity Department. The inspection work was not carried by him but by the Directorate of Quality assurance, New Delhi. The orders were to be placed by the Executive Engineer and the consignee of the goods was also the Executive Engineer who has to sign all the documents about receipt of the goods after verification of the supplies. According to prosecution, the signatures of the Executive Engineer were forged on these documents by the applicant. Naturally, whether those signatures were forged by the present applicant or not can be said with certainty only after the report of the handwriting expert is received. The applicant was arrested in April 2011. He was in police custody. His specimen signature and handwriting was obtained and the disputed signatures were referred to the handwriting expert. In fact, the investigation could not be said to have been completed and the accused could not be charge-sheeted for forging the documents unless the handwriting expert report would be available. The handwriting expert report is not yet available, though the applicant is in custody for last about 9 months. In fact, the investigation could not be said to have been completed and the accused could not be charge-sheeted for forging the documents unless the handwriting expert report would be available. The handwriting expert report is not yet available, though the applicant is in custody for last about 9 months. If investigation was not completed the accused would be entitled to be released on bail on expiry of 90 days after his arrest under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. It appears that only to see that the accused is not given benefit of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., the investigating agency rushed to file the charge sheet even though the investigation was not completed and there was no material to say with certainty that the signatures on the concerned documents were not of the Executive Engineer and were forged by the applicant himself or through somebody else. 7. Though according to prosecution, the applicant had received huge share out of the money paid to the supplier, it is admitted by the prosecution that the office and residential premises of the applicant were searched, but no incriminating article or property was recovered. The statement of the accused was recorded in which he allegedly admitted to have received the huge amount. His statement shows that in the year 2005, he had purchased a house where he resides. Purchase of that house in 2005 cannot be connected with the present case or with the gains from the present case. In the statement, it s noted that he himself, his wife and his son had accounts with several Banks. The learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, makes a statement that from the statements of those accounts, no incriminating material was found. The Investigating Agency could not find any property or money with him which could be said to be disproportionate in relation to his lawful sources and income. 8. In view of the above circumstances and the fact that the applicant is in custody for last about 8 months even though investigation is not yet completed, it is appropriate to grant bail to him. 9. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs. 8. In view of the above circumstances and the fact that the applicant is in custody for last about 8 months even though investigation is not yet completed, it is appropriate to grant bail to him. 9. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs. 50,000/-with one or two sureties to make up the amount with condition that he shall not dispose of the immovable property in the name of himself, his wife or any family member without prior permission of the trial Court. If the Investigating agency finds any immovable property in his name, it may report to the trial Court and seek attachment of the same pending trial.