ASHOK RAJ ALIAS ASHOK KUMAR BADYAL Vs. STATE BY C.B.I., A.C.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as the appellants are the accused in the same case. The appellant in first of these appeals was arraigned as accused no. 1 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'A. 1', for brevity) and the appellant in the second of these appeals was arraigned as accused no. 2 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'A. 2', for brevity) before the trial court.

(2.) IT was the case of the prosecution that India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the 'ITDC', for brevity), a Government of India undertaking, was running a Five Star Hotel namely, Hotel Ashoka, at Bangalore during the years -1995 to 1997. A. 1 was working as a Senior Manager in the said Hotel during the said period. It transpires that the renovation work had been taken up in respect of 32 guest rooms on the second and fourth floor, respectively, of the said hotel during the said period. It was alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy between A. 1 and A. 2, as a result of which, the renovation work, which A. 1 was empowered to award, with ulterior motives had been conferred on A. 2, with an understanding that payments would be made for the sub -standard work, not executed according to the specifications and the proceeds would be shared between the accused. This is said to have been discovered in hindsight and therefore, they were prosecuted. It is the case of the prosecution that A. 1, as the head of the Civil Engineering Division of the hotel, was in a position to invite tenders, which had been done by issuing advertisements in the local news papers. Several entities had submitted their tenders. However, since A. 1 intended to award the work to A. 2 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, it was indeed awarded in the name of a firm, which was said to have been represented by A. 2 and which was later discovered to be nonexistent, namely, M/s. Interiors India Limited, Bangalore (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IIL', for brevity). It is the case of the prosecution that A. 1 himself had processed the tender application and also supported the proposal for awarding the contract to IIL, without regard to the credentials of the said firm and suppressed the details. The unsuspecting management had approved the award of contract in favour of the said firm. It is the case of the prosecution that when bills for payment in respect of the works executed by IIL were submitted, the same were processed by A. 1 and recommended for payment, again giving no room for suspicion as regards the identity of the agency being suspect, or the works being substandard, in order to ensure illegal profit. As a result of this conspiracy, the loss sustained by the management was quantified at Rs. 1.46 Lakh. IT is on these facts that the accused had been charge - sheeted and charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC, for brevity) and an additional charge was framed against A. 1 for misconduct punishable under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity).

(3.) THE defence set up by the accused was as follows: - A. 1 had stated that after obtaining technical sanction for the work at Rs. 8,94,372.80. the tender of IIL, which was said to be the lowest was accepted and the proposal recommending to award work was sent by A. 1 to the General Manager, who approved the same and the same was also scrutinized by the Engineers of the Scrutiny Cell, Vice President (Engineer) accepted the tender and a work order was issued. The net amount payable after the work was completed was Rs. 12,06,761.68, which was again approved by the Director (Finance). The balance payable after deducting the payments made in furtherance of the running bills was Rs. 2,06,761.68 and that the said accused had along with one Ayya Dorai and Engineering Assistant Mr. Jagadish, had visited the office of IIL at J.C. Road, Bangalore and the cheques and correspondences were all delivered at that particular address and there is no indication of any correspondence being returned to contend that it was not a non -existent firm. As there was delay in payment on one occasion and since there was urgency of work to be attended by the contractor, on request of the accounts branch, A. 1 had received the cheque and handed over to the Site Engineer of the Contract. Therefore, there was no irregularity that could be pointed out to claim that there was any kind of conspiracy.