Delhi High Court
Anil Verma vs Cbi on 5 November, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th November, 2014
+ Crl. MB 974/2014 in CRL.A. 603/2014
ANIL VERMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior adv.
with Mr. Sanjay Abbot, Advs.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel
for CBI
+ Crl. MB 1015/2014 in CRL.A. 623/2014
AVINASH CHANDER CHANANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior adv. with
Mr. Anil Sethi, Advs.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel
for CBI
+ Crl. MB 10002/2014 in CRL.A. 802/2014
ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S. Das, Adv.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Standing
Counsel for CBI
+ Crl. MB 10133/2014 in CRL.A. 1002/2014
BHIMA RAZU PRASAD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S. Jauhar, Adv.
versus
CBI & OTH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Standing
Counsel for CBI
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
Crl.MB.10002/14 in Crl.A.802/2014 & Crl.MB.10133/14 in Crl.A.1002/2014 Page 1 of 7
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Crl. MB 974/2014, 1015/2014, 10002/2014 &10133/2014
1. Vide these applications, the appellants seeks suspension of sentence
during the pendency of the appeal and their release on bail.
2. It was submitted by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior counsel
for the appellant Anil Verma that in 1996, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited
(hereinafter referred to as `RINL') invited tenders for handling,
transportation and consignment agent for stockyard at Badarpur to
Tughlakabad Railway Siding. The bid was submitted by the appellant, in
the name of Verma Transport Company (hereinafter referred to as `VTC')
at Rs.36 per metric ton which was declared as the lowest bidder and the
contract was awarded to VTC. Accordingly, a contract was entered into
between VTC and RINL on 01.04.1996 for a period of three years
extendable by two years for handling of steel items.
3. It is further alleged that for a period of 7 months from 01.04.1996 to
30.11.1996, VTC performed the contract to the satisfaction of RINL.
However, the land pertaining to the Badarpur stockyard, which was taken
on lease by RINL expired on 30.11.1996. Due to the expiration of the
lease deed and the inability on RINL's part to not get the extension of
lease, VTC was now asked by RINL to transport the goods from
Bahadurgarh to Tikri Kalan [i.e. from Haryana and Delhi]. Accordingly,
VTC vide letter dated 04.01.1997, wrote a letter objecting to the shifting in
operations laying down various concerns such as availability of trucks and
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
trailers at high prices, small railway siding, hassles at Haryana/Delhi
border, limited timings of availability of trucks and trailers which would
increase Railway wharfage. Vide the said letter, VTC claimed a revised
rate of Rs.270 per MT (@851. VTC thereafter entered into negotiations
with a Committee formed by RINL and the rate was negotiated to Rs.140
per MT from Rs.270 per MT. The said rates of Rs.140 per MT were
approved by the Committee after thorough investigation. Regional Finance
Manager, T. George Abraham endorsed the finding of the Committee and
the same were approved up to the level of the CMD.
4. Based on the Committee report, the contract was renegotiated and
revised rate of Rs.140 per metric ton was made applicable by issuing an
amendment to the contract. The contract work was executed till the end of
the contract period of 31.03.1999, which was extended from time to time
up till 30.09.2000.
5. On 04.01.2001, FIR was registered and charge sheet was submitted.
In the meantime, RINL initiated arbitration proceedings against VTC for
recovery of excess payment of Rs. 3 crores approximately. Vide order
dated 20.12.2011, the arbitration being conducted by 3 Judges, gave an
arbitration award in favour of VTC thereby dismissing the claim of RINL.
However, the learned Trial Court completely disregarded the said
judgment. It was further submitted that some people from the Truckers
Union were examined as prosecution witnesses who have deposed that the
charges for the truckers union was Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2000/- and the rates
varied from Rs.50/- to Rs.75/- to Rs.100/- per Metric Tonne. Contrary to
this evidence, it was held that there was no Union Charge and hence the
claim of the appellant for increase in charges was baseless.
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
6. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in relying
on the testimony of PW4 T.George Abraham who had stated that though
he visited the Truckers Union along with co-accused B.Razu Prasad and
A.K.Gupta and was introduced to the Pradhan, however, he did not
understand the conversation since he did not know Hindi. In cross
examination, he admitted that he had not informed anyone or given in
writing to any officer that he is not conversant with Hindi language. PW-
26 E.K.Chari in his cross examination stated that PW4 T.George Abraham
knew Hindi as he had worked with him for many years.
7. It was further submitted that the shift in the site from "Badarpur-
Tuglakabad" to "Bahadurgarh-Tikri Kalan"was not at the behest of the
appellant. The change in site occurred due to the expiry of the lease with
RINL and they were unable to get the same extended. On the change in
site, VTC sought an increase in the amount on various grounds such as
Union Charges etc. PW26 E.K.Chari deposed about the formation of the
Committee to determine the veracity and authenticity of the charges of the
Transporters Union. He also admitted that he had personally known about
the existence of the workers union due to interaction with the people at
Bahadurgarh. He also admitted that the Committee had given its
recommendations for the various rates which was sent to the Finance
Department and the recommendations of the Finance Department were
finally approved by the CMD on 30.05.1997.
8. It was submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.04.2014
and has spend more than 7 months in custody including remission. He is a
patient of depression and has suffered tragedy due to death of his young
son during the pendency of the trial. It was further submitted that although
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
the fine imposed by the Trial court is excessive in nature, however, he is
ready to deposit the fine amount.
9. Reliance was placed on J.Jaylalithaa v. State of Tamilnadu in
SLP(Crl.)No.7900/2014 for submitting that sentence was suspended
within less than one month of the passing of the conviction order for a
much graver offence.
10. Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the appellant Avinash
Chander Chanana submitted that the appellant is in custody since
17.04.2014; he is 82 years old and is totally infirm; he is suffering from
various ailments and appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future.
There are no allegations that the appellant obtained any personal benefit;
his role was confined to obtaining certificate from the Union.
11. Mr. S.S.Das, learned counsel for appellant Ashwani Kumar Gupta
reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
and submitted that being a junior most officer in the hierarchy of officers
and being Branch Manager, he had no option but to put up a note to the
higher authorities for a decision in the matter so as to run the marketing
operations of the branch. The note was processed as per normal procedure.
After PW4 had recorded his views on it, the note went to accused no.1,
Bhima Razu Prasad, Regional Manager and then to PW26 E.K.Chari and
to other officers. PW4 recommended consideration of the rate of Rs.140
per MT for Bahadurgarh site, as an interim measure, till competitive bids
were invited. VSP HQ did not call for fresh tender as suggested by PW4.
They directed A1 and PW4 to verify the quantum of union fee. Pending
verification, the report of 140 per MT was approved till 31.03.1997 as
suggested by PW4. These two officers asked A2 also to accompany them
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
to Bahadurgarh for verification. The verification report was submitted,
proposing to continue the contract at the rate of Rs.140 per MT till its
expiry in March 1999. The quantum of union fee was personally verified
by PW26 E.K.Chari. The appellant was not the sanctioning authority. The
note was put up before the higher officers and after due consideration was
sanctioned by the competent authority, as such there was no ground for
observing that any rule was disregarded by the appellant or any undue
advantage was received by him. The appellant is in jail for 10 months; he
is the sole earning member of the family. Due to financial constraints his
sons are likely to drop their studies. Reliance was placed on
J.Jaylalithaaa (supra) and various orders passed by the Coordinate Bench
for showing that the sentence was suspended in less than one month of
their conviction.
12. Sh.S.S.Jauhar, Advocate for Bhima Razu Prasad reiterated the
submissions made by the counsels. Besides that it was submitted that the
illegal gratification and its acceptance is the sine qua non for attracting the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act which are absolutely lacking in
the instant case. The appellant is in custody for last 7 months, as such his
sentence be suspended.
13. The applications are opposed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned
counsel for CBI who referred to various portions of the judgment for
showing the complexity of the appellants in the crime and that the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. In view of the
serious allegations, the appellants should not be released on bail.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Standing counsel for CBI, the applications are allowed.
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
15. Sentence of the appellant Anil Verma is suspended during the
pendency of the appeal and he is ordered to be released on bail on the
following conditions:-
(i) He is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. Two
lakhs with two sureties in the like amount, one of whom should
be a family member, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(ii) fine imposed by the learned Trial Court be deposited;
(iii) he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the
concerned Court;
(iv) he shall deposit his passport, if any, in the Trial Court;
(v) he shall furnish his address and contact number to the Court as
well as to the CBI and also intimate if there is any change in his
contact number/address;
(vi) he shall make himself available as and when the appeal comes
up for hearing.
16. The sentence of the remaining three appellants are also suspended
on the same terms and conditions as stated above and subject to deposit of
fine, except with a modification that they will furnish personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties in the like amount, one of
whom shall be a family member, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Applications stand disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti
under the signature of Court Master.
Crl.A.Nos. 603/2014, 623/2014, 802/2014 & 1002/2014
List in due course at its own turn.
(SUNITA GUPTA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 05, 2014/as
Crl.MB.974/14 in Crl.A.603/2014, Crl.MB.1015/14 in Crl.A.623/2014,
