-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Manish Bansal Vs. Union of India (1) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.997/2007 Dr.Govind Vallabh Rattudi Vs. Union of India (2) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1092/2007 against the order dt.5.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur, in Special Original Cr.Case No.6/2004. Date of Judgment: July 16, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.C.S.Kotwani, for the petitioners. Mr.Panney Singh, for Union of India. BY THE COURT : 1. These are two revision petitions, one filed by Manish Bansal, partner of M/s Sandeep Instruments & Chemicals, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi and the other by Dr.Govind Vallabh Rattudi, the then Director of the Central Institute of Arid Horticulture, `in short “the CIAH”, Bikaner, against the order of the learned -2- Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur dated 5.7.2007, whereby the learned Judge framed the charges u/ss.120B read with ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC with Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The charge against Dr.Rattudi was that in the year 2000- 2001 while working as Director, CIAH in conspiracy with the petitioner Manish Bansal, partner of the Firm M/s Sandeep Instruments and Chemicals, New Delhi, prepared forged tenders on the basis of advertisement by which he notified open tenders for certain laboratory equipments viz; Electronic Analytical Balance and weighing machines and accepted the tender of the petitioner M/s Manish Bansal at the rate of Rs.1,09,560/- of one instrument, whereas the actual price of which was Rs.71,500/-. Thus, he caused loss to the State Exchequer by giving pecuniary advantage to the private Firm. In this case, the FIR was lodged by the CBI, Jodhpur on the basis of the source information and after investigation, the present challan was filed u/ss.120B read with ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC with Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case, the order of framing charge is not a speaking one and the learned Judge has not applied his mind on the basis of the -3- evidence collected by the CBI. He mainly acted as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, no proper sanction was obtained for prosecution and the offence u/s.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) or other offences of IPC including the offence of conspiracy punishable u/s.120B IPC, are not made out from the investigation papers, as no illegality was committed by the department in inviting and approving tenders. Learned counsel has submitted that open tenders were invited and so many Firms applied and after constituting a committee of three members, the tender of petitioner M/s Manish Bansal was finalized for supply of two Analytical machines/balances to the Govt. department at the lowest price. He has also submitted that Manish Bansal is not a public servant and no charge can be framed against him under the P.C.Act as also against Dr.Ratudi, who has since retired and no sanction has been obtained for his prosecution. In support of his contention, he has basically relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 alongwith other cases. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that from the evidence on record and documents collected by the CBI during investigation, it is abundantly clear that the Electronic Analytical Balances supplied by the petitioner M/s Sandeep -4- Instruments & Chemicals were of Rs.71,500/- each but the Firm was paid Rs.1,09,560/- each. Thus, on both the instruments, an excess amount of Rs.76,120/- was paid by way of pecuniary advantage to the Firm. All formalities of tenders etc. were forged to cheat the Government. Therefore, the charges have rightly been framed. According to him, Dr.Rattudi has retired but there is no need of sanction for prosecution. According to him, the charge of criminal conspiracy can be framed alongwith the offence under the P.C.Act even against a private person, who is not defined as public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the decision of R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.antulay reported in (1984) 2 SCC 183. 5. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions putforth by the learned counsel for the parties, it is true that the impugned order of framing charge dt.5.7.07 is not a speaking order but the learned Judge has observed in the order that he perused the file and also the evidence and documents available on record & considered the arguments. It is incumbent upon the judge to deal with those arguments but if it has not been done, the same cannot vitiate the trial or be a ground for quashing the charges framed. The Court of revision or appeal can very well look into the allegations levelled in the -5- documents filed with the challan. Here, in the present case, the investigating officer collected the evidence of several witnesses. In this case, one of the persons who submitted the tender is Gurudutt Sharma, who has denied that he submitted any tender of his Firm Dataref Industries to Director, CIAH. Though he deposited the amount of Rs.8000/- in his a/c received through D.D. from CIAH, Bikaner but he came to know of it only when the CBI came for investigation. According to him, he never applied for tender to CIAH, Bikaner and only a fake letterhead in the name of his Firm has been used. The same is the statement of Laxminarayan Sharma, who is the proprietor of the Firm Lumax Scientific Equipment Engineers, whose forged tender has been submitted to CIAH, Bikaner. The member of the Tender Evaluation Committee Dr.Rakesh Bhargava has also been examined by the CBI. He has stated that though they recommended Electronic Analytical Balance to be purchased from M/s Sandeep Instruments and Chemicals on the basis of the lowest rate and technical screening but experience was not looked into. Hasmukh Bhai Shantilal Patel is the clerk of the department. He has stated that all the alleged forged forms were collected by the P.A. to Dr.Rattudi viz; Smt.R.H.Memon from him at the behest of the Director. Normally, they should have been sent through post. One of the members of the Committee Dr.Pyarelal Saroj has also stated that out of four, the tender of -6- Sandeep Instruments & Chemicals was approved on the basis of specification and rates but they did not check the rates from the market. Dr.B.D.Sharma, another member of the Committee, has also stated on the same line. 6. On the basis of these statements, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has not considered the ground for presuming the offence. The witnesses in their statements have clearly said that other tenders than that of the petitioner were forged and P.A. to Dr.Rattudi took the tender forms from the clerk concerned and that the rates were not verified by the Committee from the market. These are such grounds, which can prima facie draw the presumption that something has happened between Dr.Rattudi, the then Director of the CIAH and Manish Bansal, the proprietor of M/s Sandeep Instruments & Chemicals and that cannot be other than the pecuniary advantage. 7. For the purpose of constituting the offence u/s.13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, this itself, is an offence punishable under Sec.13(2) of the Act. 8. The circumstances, as discussed above, reveal that the -7- chargesheet filed by the CBI with regard to conspiracy of Dr.Rattudi with the Firm viz; M/s Sandeep Instruments & Chemicals's Incharge Manish Bansal, whose tender has been accepted, cannot be said to be insufficient evidence for proceeding against the accused petitioners and to discharge them u/s.227 IPC. 9. The case of Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable in the present case because in that case, appellant Kurane was prosecuted under the P.C.Act on account of being a lecturer in the private college of State of Maharashtra affiliated to Shivaji University, Kolhapur. He was assigned the duty of examining the answer books of students in which he obtained Rs.400/- from each of the students to favour them but while making trap, no police agency was involved. F.I.R. was lodged after 7 days. No incriminating articles were found from the possession of the accused and the statements of the witnesses were recorded after ten months of the occurrence, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, infact the prosecution has not been able to throw any suspicion. The other citations of the learned counsel are, by and large, on the same point with regard to sufficiency of the grounds for proceeding against the accused in a matter of -8- charge. 10. So far as the sanction for prosecution is concerned, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S.Nayak's case (supra), it is not required under the P.C.Act, where cognizance of such offence is taken after cessation of office. This was a case of prosecution under the P.C.Act against A.R.Antulay, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. 11. In view of the above discussion, there seems no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the order of the learned Special Judge dt.5.7.07 framing charges against the petitioners Manish Bansal and Dr.Rattudi for the offences u/ss.120B read with ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC with Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS