Delhi High Court
Jagdish Kumar Arora vs Cbi on 25 March, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 26th August, 2020
Judgment delivered on: 25th March, 2021
+ CRL.M.C.3505/2017 & CRL.M.A.14279/2017, 241/2018 &
242/2018
JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA ... Petitioner
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bora,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mridul Jain, Special Public Prosecutor
+ CRL.M.C.3529/2017 & CRL.M.A.14376/2017, 237/2018,
238/2018, 31510/2018 & 31511/2018
RAMAN GUPTA ... Petitioner
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal
Budhiraja and Ms. Isha Bhalla, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mridul Jain, Special Public Prosecutor
+ CRL.M.C.3605/2017 & CRL.M.A.14702/2017
S. K. CHAUHAN ... Petitioner
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL CRL.M.C.3505/2017, CRL.M.C.3529/2017& CRL.M.C.3605/2017 Page 1 of 45
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shashi
Shankar and Mr. Anshul Duggal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mridul Jain, Special Public Prosecutor
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioners in the respective petitions impugn common order on
charge dated 28.07.2017, whereby charges have been framed against
the petitioners under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471
Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with substantive
offences.
2. Jagdish Kumar Arora, (Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3505 of 2017),
was the then Executive Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board, S.K.
Chauhan, (Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3605 of 2017), was the then
Assistant Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board and Raman Gupta,
(Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3529 of 2017), a private person and was the
Proprietor of M/s Metro Projects and Sales Services.
3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the basis of source
information FIR was registered under Section 120 B read with
sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2)
read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Act, 1988 on the allegations that during the period 2009 - 2012, Mr.
Jagdish Kumar Arora, the then Executive Engineer (E&M) , Mr. S.K.
Chauhan, JE (E&M), SDW-VI DJB and other unknown officers of
DJB, hatched a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Raman Gupta,
Proprietor of M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services to cause wrongful
loss to Delhi Jal Board (DJB) in the matter of purchase of spare parts
i.e. machinery/spare parts/pumps and motors etc. of 'Essenpro' make,
originally manufactured by M/s Essential Power & Transmission
(Pvt.) Limited, 24, Marol Co-op Industrial Estate Limited, M V Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai by using false authorization
letter/documents.
4. After investigation, Charge Sheet was filed on 30.06.2016
under Sections 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 Indian Penal
Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed framing of
charges against the Petitioners.
6. It is alleged in the charge sheet that during the period 2009-
2012, petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss
to Delhi Jal Board (Delhi Jal Board) in the matter of purchase of spare
parts i.e. machinery/spare parts/pumps and motors etc. of 'Essenpro'
make, by using false authorization letter/documents.
7. It is alleged that Petitioner Raman Gupta of M/s. Metro Projects
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
& Sales Services sent letters to the Executive Engineer, SDW (VI),
Delhi Jal Board claiming himself to be the sole authorized dealer for
spares, renovation and servicing of "Essenpro" make gear boxes.
8. It is alleged that during the period of 2009 to 2012, the original
manufacturer M/s. Essential Power & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. had
supplied items only to the tune of Rs. 32,56,500/- to M/s. Roltec
Marketing Engineers, its authorized representative in Delhi. However,
investigation revealed that work orders amounting to Rs.
2,78,86,452/- were awarded to M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services
by the Delhi Jal Board, which caused a huge wrongful loss to the
Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the
supplier firm M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services.
9. Though the FIR mentions only ten work orders, however during
investigation it is alleged that total twenty three work orders had been
issued to M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services, for supply of
"Essenpro" brand spare parts/ repair work by Delhi Jal Board
officials posted at Keshopur Plant, during the years 2009 to 2012.
10. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Sewage Treatment
Plants were installed by different companies at different sites of the
Delhi Jal Board during the period 1995 to 2000 and "Essenpro" make
gear box were approved/ installed by these firms at the time of setting
of plants. Since the equipments installed, required regular routine
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
maintenance as well as break down maintenance, spares were required
on continuous basis to run the equipments for uninterrupted operation.
11. It is alleged that investigations revealed that the Executive
Engineer in charge was responsible for maintenance of the Sewage
Treatment Plant and procurement of spare parts etc. under his
supervision. The responsibility of checking, measuring and recording
the items of work in a project as per the CPWD manual, irrespective
of their cost, was of the Junior Engineer-in-charge of the work.
12. The Junior Engineer was responsible to check 100% correctness
of the work; the Assistant Engineer concerned was to check not less
than 50% of the work and the concerned Executive Engineer was to
test check 10% of the measurements recorded by his subordinates and
at least every alternate bill for works at his Head Quarter and at least
every 3rd bill for works outside his Head Quarters.
13. It is alleged by the prosecution the spare parts of 'Essenpro'
make gear box had been purchased by Delhi Jal Board officials
through the firm M/s. Metro Project and Sales Services. It is alleged
that M/s. Metro Project and Sales Services was initially authorized, by
Mr. K. C. Shah, Marketing Director of M/s Essential Power
Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (the manufacturer) for two sewage
treatment plants (STP) of the Delhi Jal Board at Rithala and
Coronation Pillar. The authorisation was to procure tenders, enquiries
etc. for spare/gearbox of 'Essenpro' make and for submission of offer
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
for the same on behalf of company for procurement of orders and
execution in the year 2008.
14. It is alleged that investigations further revealed that later, late
Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana, Chief Executive and Regional in-charge
for Northern Region of M/s. Essential Power & Transmission Pvt.
Ltd. the manufacturer, authorized the petitioner Mr. Raman Gupta,
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Project and Sales Services for
materialization of orders for the Delhi Jal Board on behalf of the
company. The officials of Delhi Jal Board used to contact and
correspond with Late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana Proprietor of M/s
Roltec Marketing Engineer for supply of "Essenpro" make spare
parts and also for technical assistance etc.
15. It is alleged that late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana, on behalf of
the manufacturer, furnished rates and terms and conditions for the
supply directly, without the knowledge of the manufacturer at
Mumbai.
16. It is alleged in the Charge Sheet that the Petitioner Mr. Raman
Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services supplied
spare parts of "Essenpro make" without procuring the same from the
manufacturer. He provided purchase vouchers of a local firms namely
M/s. Metal Craft (India) in case of proprietary items & M/s. Indo
Silicon Pvt. Ltd. in case of general items. It is alleged that there was
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
no subcontract or authorization from the manufacturers or from the
Delhi Jal Board to allow the said local firms to supply the spare parts.
17. It is alleged that total sixteen work orders, for procurement of
spare parts and repair work, amounting to Rs.1,85,06,197/- had been
executed by the Petitioner Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora and Mr. S. K.
Chauhan, and Mr. S.K Yadav (deceased) the then Assistant Engineer
with M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services for supply of 'Essenpro'
brand spare parts/repair work during the period under investigation
i.e. 2009 to 2012. All the said work orders, Contract Agreements were
signed between the contractor Mr. Raman Gupta, proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects & Sales Services and Delhi Jal Board for execution of
work and all the required basic formalities for award of contract were
completed before signing the Contract Agreement.
18. It is alleged that on the back side of bills of M/s. Metro Project
and Sales Services, Petitioner - Mr. Satish Kumar Chauhan, the then
Junior Engineer; Mr. S.K Yadav (deceased) the then Assistant
Engineer and Petitioner - Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora, the then
Executive Engineer, have given Completion Certificates mentioning
therein that bills have been verified and accepted in all the sixteen
work orders. It was also specifically mentioned that the material was
entered in the stock book and bills were entered in measurement book
and endorsed that "Nothing is due against the firm" etc.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
19. It is alleged that investigation further revealed that the material
was received by Petitioner - Mr. Satish Kumar Chauhan, the then
Junior Engineer along with the bills of M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services.
20. As per the charge sheet, investigations revealed that the
authorization letters submitted to the Delhi Jal Board issued by the
official representative of the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Essential Power
Transmission Pvt. Ltd in favour of M/s Metro Projects & Sales
Services were forged in all the cases.
21. It is alleged that the spare parts mentioned in the procurement
orders had never been supplied by M/s. Essential Power Transmission
Pvt. Ltd. and most of the spare parts were proprietary items and not
available in the open market, thereby establishing that duplicate
material has been supplied by contractor - Mr. Raman Gupta which
was procured from the local market and not from the manufacturer
and that too at exorbitant rates. Mr. Raman Gupta had provided
purchase voucher of local firms M/s. Metal Craft (India) showing
supply by local firm against a proprietary item, which was not
available in open market.
22. Mr. S. K. Chauhan, Mr. S.K Yadav (deceased) and Mr. Jagdish
Kumar Arora, had cleared the payment to the contractor despite
presence of local purchase voucher along with the bill of M/s. Metro
Projects & Sales Services. Even in cases where the contractor did not
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
provide purchase vouchers, payments were cleared. The actual cost of
the same spare parts of the work orders, as per the rates provided by
the Manufacturer was Rs. 36,27,750/-, but the contractor charged Rs.
1,49,34,106/- (without VAT & job work charges) for the same spare
parts.
23. It is alleged that Petitioners had caused a loss of
Rs.1,13,06,356/- to the Government exchequer, during the period
under investigation and had also used material of inferior quality and
did not make any effort to find out from manufacturer about the
authenticity of the supply.
24. As per the charge sheet investigations revealed that in 16 work
orders, Petitioner - Mr. Satish Kumar Chauhan; Late Mr. S.K. Yadav
(accused in Column No.2) the then Assistant Engineer and Petitioner -
Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora dishonestly & fraudulently facilitated the
payment to the Petitioner - Raman Gupta and signed on the
measurement book, despite the presence of local purchase voucher
showing local supply in one case of proprietary items along with the
bills of M/s. Metro Projects & Sales Services and also in other cases
without proper satisfaction about the duplicate material supplied by
contractor.
25. Consequently charge sheet was filed under Section 120B read
with Sections 420, & 471 Indian Penal Code & Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
26. By the impugned order on charge dated 28.07.2017, the Trial
Court has held that there was sufficient material to frame charges
against the Petitioners and accordingly charges were framed on
02.08.2017.
27. Aggrieved by the order on charge and the framing of charges,
Petitioners have filed these petitions.
28. Ms. Rebecca John, Leaned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora (the then Executive Engineer (E
& M), Delhi Jal Board, contends that he is innocent and has been
falsely implicated. It is submitted that prosecution has failed to
substantiate the charge of conspiracy. It is further submitted that the
prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegation of forgery of the
authorization in favour of M/s. Metro Sales and Services and alleged
usage of substandard spare parts.
29. It is submitted that the conspiracy is alleged to have
commenced in the year 2009 whereas, the petitioner Jagdish Kumar
Arora had joined the concerned division in Delhi Jal Board w.e.f.
March, 2011 and before his taking over of charge, M/s. Metro Projects
and Sales Services had already been accepted as the dealer of the
Manufacturer and the department was corresponding with late Mr.
Satish Kumar Chanana as the Manufacturer. It is submitted that he
was following the procedure which was already followed.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
30. It is submitted that after the request was received for supply of
spare parts/ repair by the Foreman, which was put up before him after
routing it through the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant
Engineer, a letter was sent through post to the manufacturer M/s.
Essential Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. at its Delhi address inviting
for a quote for the spare parts/ repairing. It is submitted that the
manufacturer used to send its quotation alongwith the authorization of
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services as its dealer. It is submitted
that only after receiving the quotations from manufacturer and
authorization in favour of M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Service, the
note was initiated for placing before the competent authority i.e.
Superintending Engineer for his approval and after receiving his
approval the work order was awarded in favour of the contractor.
31. It is submitted that after the execution of the work, the same
used to be verified from the Measurement Book and it used to be
forwarded to the Accounts Department only after which the payments
were made
32. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to even
prima facie show knowledge of the petitioner Mr. Jagdish Kumar
Arora while verifying the documents in question. It is submitted that
the manufacturer had authorized late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana as
their North India Region in-charge and he was fully authorized to take
decisions on behalf of the company.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
33. It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to establish
that Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora was responsible for forging the
signatures of late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana or that he was
acquainted with the signatures of late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana.
34. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in A. Subair v. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC
587 to contend that the primary requisite of an offence under section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is proof of a demand or
request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public
servant and in the absence of proof thereof, the offence under the said
section cannot be held to be established.
35. Learned senior counsel further contends that there is no
material to show any meeting of mind between the accused and as
such the charge under section 120B of the IPC is not sustainable.
36. While adopting the arguments of Ms. Rebecca John, Ms Geeta
Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Mr. S.K.
Chauhan (the then Assistant Engineer (E & M), Delhi Jal Board),
relied upon the statement of Mr. Mahinder Singh the then Chief
Engineer and Mr. K.C. Shah, Chairman and Managing Director of
Essential Power & Transmission Private Limited to contend that there
was no complaint that the equipment was of substandard or not
working properly and to further show that detection of duplication of
the component was not possible with naked eyes and its genuineness
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
could only be detected by testing the same at the factory of the
manufacturer.
37. It is submitted that there is no material to show that the material
supplied was substandard or that there was any loss to the Delhi Jal
Board or any gain to the accused.
38. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner - Mr. Raman Gupta (the proprietor of the Contractor - M/s.
Metro project & Sales Services) additionally submits that the said
concern was initially authorized by Mr. K.C. Shah, Marketing
Director of M/s. Essential Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. for two
sewage plants (STP) of Delhi Jal Board at Rithala and Coronation
Pillar in the year 2008, to procure orders, tenders, enquires etc. for
spare parts/gear boxes of 'Essenpro' make on behalf of the
manufacturer.
39. He further contends that said concern was authorised by letter
dated 18.07.2008 which was issued on the recommendation of late
Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana. He submits that admittedly, late Mr.
Satish Kumar Chanana, Chief Executive was fully authorized by the
manufacturer by letters dated 24.01.2002 & 16.11.2009 to take a
decision on behalf of the company for materialization of
orders/contract and offer and after sales services etc. and he had full
authority to take a decision regarding the business interests of the
manufacturer in the Northern Region.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
40. He submits that on recommendation of late Mr. Satish Kumar
Chanana, M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services was authorized to
work on behalf of the Manufacturer. It is submitted that there was
sufficient material to show that Petitioner - Raman Gupta was the
authorized dealer of the manufacturer.
41. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the office of Delhi
Jal Board used to contact and correspond with late Mr. Satish Kumar
Chanana the Regional In-charge - Northern Region for supply of
"Essenpro" make spare parts and also for technical assistance without
directly involving the manufacturer at Mumbai.
42. It is submitted that for each and every requirement of spare part
or repairs to be carried out, the Executive Engineer used to send a
letter to late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana asking him to submit the
offer along with other terms and conditions, pursuant to which late
Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana informed that M/s. Metro Project and
Sales Services was their authorized dealer to execute the work order
passed by them and also intimated the rates of the spare parts and the
cost of the repairs.
43. It is submitted that the alleged forged authorization letters were
sent directly from the office of late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana to
Delhi Jal Board through courier. It is submitted that there is no
allegation that the letters were received from the Petitioner Mr.
Raman Gupta.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
44. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that there is no
material on record to show that the spare parts supplied were duplicate
and no verification was done to show that the spare parts were not
genuine.
45. Learned senior counsel submits that conspiracy between the co-
accused has to be prior in point of time. He submits that the period in
issue is 2009 - 2012 and admittedly the co-accused Jagdish Kumar
Arora was not in the concerned seat during the period 2009 - 2011.
46. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan (2000) 8 SCC 203 to
contend that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence
direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between
two or more persons to commit an offence.
47. Further reliance is placed on the decision in Dilawar Balu
Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 to contend that the
Trial Judge cannot act as a mere post office or mouth piece of the
prosecution and he has to sift and weigh evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case has been made out.
48. Before examining the merits of the submissions of learned
senior counsels for the Petitioners, it would be expedient to examine
the legal principles and parameters for framing of charge against an
accused and the scope and extent of examination of the material
collected by the prosecution during investigation.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
49. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan
Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290 has laid down that the court while
considering the question of framing charges under Section 227
Criminal Procedure Code has the power to sift and weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine
prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the
material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the
accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be
fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The
probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into
at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving
enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be
weighed as if a trial is being conducted.
50. In Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019)
16 SCC 547, the Supreme Court has held that all that is required is
that the court must be satisfied from the material available, that a case
is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion is
sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some
material. The material must be such which can be translated into
evidence at the stage of trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously
judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable
defence of the accused at the stage of framing of charges. The court is
not to consider whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the
accused, or whether the trial is sure to end in a conviction.
51. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & ors. v. Som Nath
Thapa & Ors, (1996) 4 SCC 659 held that "If on the basis of
materials on record, a Court comes to the conclusion that commission
of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge
exists. To put it differently if the Court were to think that the accused
might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has
committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of
charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone
into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be
accepted as true at that stage".
52. In the present case, the Trial Court has done a very lucid
analysis of the material collected during investigation and examined
the allegations with regard to each of the bills and observed as under:
Sr. Details of Observations
No. Bill/Invoice
1. Bill No. 11/546 It is evident from the record that during
dated 31.10.2011, investigation the manufacturer had not
amounting to provided the rates of the two items i.e.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Rs.9,02,000/- ( D46 Worm Gear Box Complete H 100 and
Page No. 1/15 and Worm Gear Box Complete H 125. M/s.
(D2 Page No. 23) Metro Projects and Sales Services
claimed that they are authorized dealers
of manufacturer M/s. EPTP Mumbai
whereas on the other side he had
procured this material from local
market, itself primafacie showing that
the material supplied vide this bill is not
procured from the manufacturer. As
pointed out, M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services also failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer for
proving the facts that they had procured
all these material from the
manufacturer. Perusal of the document
D2 (page no.4) reveals that M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services was
authorized by authorized signatory for
M/s. EPTP Ltd. Which letter was sent to
the handwriting expert for his opinion
and the expert vide his report dated
30.01.2015 opined that Q85 is not the
signatures of S.K. Chanana and hence
primafacie the authorization letter itself
is forged and Mr. S.K. Chanana had not
authorized M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services to execute the work as
dealer of the manufacturer. M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services are the
beneficiaries of the work executed. The
facts from where they had procured this
authorization/ quotations is within the
special knowledge of the Proprietor of
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
2. Bill No. 11/531 The perusal of document D3 (page 20)
dated 10.10.2011 shows that ES Oil of 50 Ltr. Pack bill
amounting to was served on Delhi Jal Board and
Rs.58,800/- which accepted by the official of Delhi Jal
are the rates of Board. It is mentioned in the bill that
manufacturer (D46 they have procured material
Page No.1/15); manufactured by 'Esenpro'. However,
Rs.4,16,304/- (rate as per page 18 of D3, the material was
charged by accused not directly procured form the
no.3 (D3 Page No. manufacturer but from the Indo Silicon
20) causing a loss of Pvt. Ltd. having tin no. 0730215183 for
Rs.3,57,504/- to an amount of Rs.3,72,000/-. Reference
Delhi Jal Board. in this regard is made to the statement
of Harminder Singh (PW9) who had
stated that he had not sold the material
to M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services, which apparently shows that
the bill in the name of Indo Silicon Pvt.
Ltd. is primafacie forged and the
accused persons had either not utilized
the material at the actual site or they
had supplied/ used the material
procured from the local market which
was not as per the requirement in the
order.
The handwriting expert vide his report
dated 30.01.2015 opined that Q84 is not
the signatures of S.K. Chanana and
hence primafacie the authorization
letter itself is forged and Mr. S.K.
Chanana had not authorized M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services to execute
the work as dealer of the manufacturer.
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the beneficiaries of the work
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
executed. The facts from where they had
procured this authorization/ quotations
is within the special knowledge of the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services namely Mr. Raman
Gupta (accused no. 3).
3. Bill No. 11/508 The perusal of the document D4 (page
dated 14.07.2011, 24 C) shows that M/s. Metro Projects
amounting to and Sales Services had supplied the
Rs.54,500/- which material make of M/s. Esenpro Pvt. Ltd.
are the rate of for an amount of Rs.4,70,880/- but the
manufacturer (D46 rate provided by the manufacturer for
Page No. 3/15) the material provided by this bill is
Rs.4,70,880/- are the Rs.54,500/- and the loss caused to the
rate charged by Delhi Jal Board amounting to
accused no.3 (D4 Rs.4,16,380/-. The Proprietor of M/s.
Page No. 24C) Metro Projects and Sales Services had
Causing a loss of failed to provide the voucher of the
Rs.4,16,380/- to manufacturer/ the person/ firm from
Delhi Jal Board. whom he had procured the material
mentioned in this bill at page 24 C of
D4. This primafacie shows that M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
claimed that they are authorized dealers
of manufacturer M/s. EPTP Mumbai
whereas on the other side he had
procured this material from local
market, which shows that the material
supplied vide this bill is not procured
from the manufacturer. M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services also failed
to provide the vouchers of the
manufacturer for confirming that they
had procured all these materials from
the manufacturer. The handwriting
expert vide his report dated 30.01.2015
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
opined that Q79 is not the signatures of
S.K. Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
the work executed. The facts from where
they had procured this authorization/
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
4. Bill No. 11/510 The perusal of document D6 (page 27)
dated 15.07.2011 shows that vide letter dated 19.06.2011
amounting to the quotations of the manufacturer were
Rs.2,32,500/- which provided and the material was supplied
are the rate of by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
manufacturer (D46 Services vide his bill dated 26.07.2011
Page No. 1/15) amounting to Rs.4,42,000/-. The
Rs.4,42,000/- are the material was received by the Officials of
rate charged by Delhi Jal Board without any voucher of
accused no.3 (D6 the manufacturer/ the person/ firm from
Page No. 22) whom the material mentioned in the bill
thereby causing loss was procured. The handwriting expert
of Rs.2,09,500/- to vide his report dated 30.01.2015 opined
Delhi Jal Board. that Q83 is not the signatures of S.K.
Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
the work executed. The facts from where
they had procured this authorization/
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
5. Bill No. 12/551 The perusal of the note sheet file D7
dated 15.11.2011 shows that the work was assigned to
amounting to M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
Rs.5,02,415/- which being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
are the rate of Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In note
manufacturer (D46 dated 11.08.2011 it is specifically
Page No. 5, 6 & mentioned that the quotations were
7/15) Rs.14,74,250/- provided by the manufacturer vide its
are the rate charged letter 28.07.2011, which letter does not
by accused no.3 (D7 bear the genuine signatures of S.K.
Page No. 42C, 43C Chanana (as opined by the expert). This
& 44C) causing loss bill produced by M/s. Metro Projects
of Rs.9,71,835/- to and Sales Services is at page 44/C to
Delhi Jal Board. 42/A and the Proprietor of M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services has failed to
provide the vouchers of the
manufacturer/ the persons/ firm from
whom he had procured the materials
mentioned in his above mentioned bill.
The handwriting expert vide his report
dated 30.01.2015 opined that Q71 is not
the signatures of S.K. Chanana and
hence primafacie the authorization
letter itself is forged and Mr. S.K.
Chanana had not authorized M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services to execute
the work as dealer of the manufacturer.
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the beneficiaries of the work
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
executed. The facts from where they had
procured this authorization/ quotations
is within the special knowledge of the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services namely Mr. Raman
Gupta (accused no. 3).
6. Bill No. 12/562 The perusal of the note sheet file D8
dated 03.12.2011 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs. 1,50,000/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s. EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 2/15) dated 15.10.2011 it is specifically
Rs.21,60,000/- are mentioned that the quotations were
the rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D8 letter dated 20.09.2011, which letter
Page No.22) thereby does not bear the genuine signatures of
causing loss of S.K. Chanana (as opined by the
Rs.20,10,000/- to handwriting expert). The bill produced
Delhi Jal Board). by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services is at page 22 and the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer/ the
persons/ firm from whom he had
procured the materials mentioned in his
above mentioned bill. The handwriting
expert vide his report dated 30.01.2015
opined that Q86 is not the signatures of
S.K. Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
the work executed. The facts from where
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
they had procured this authorization/
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
7. Bill No. 11/541 The perusal of the note sheet file D9
dated 31.10.2011 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.2,28,890/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. and in note
Page No. 4/15) dated 15.09.2011 it is specifically
Rs.9,39,000/- are the mentioned that the quotations were
rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D9 letter dated 12.09.2011, which letter
Page No. 21C) does not bear the genuine signatures of
thereby causing loss S.K. Chanana (as opined by the
of Rs.7,10,110/- to handwriting expert). This bill produced
Delhi Jal Board. by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services is at page 21/C and the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer/ the
persons/ firm from whom he had
procured the materials mentioned in his
above mentioned bill. The handwriting
expert vide his report dated 30.01.2015
opined that Q73 is not the signatures of
S.K. Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
the work executed. The facts from where
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
they had procured this authorization/
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
8. Bill No. 12/571 The perusal of the note sheet file D10
dated 22.12.2011 for (page 22) shows that the work was
Rs.80,040/- which assigned to M/s. Metro Projects and
are the rate of Sales Services being sole dealer of M/s.
manufacturer (D46 EPTP Ltd. for Delhi region for EPTP
Page No. 2/15) Ltd. In the note dated 04.11.2011 it is
Rs.4,39,300/- are the specifically mentioned that the
rate charged by quotations were provided by the
accused no.3 (D10 manufacturer vide its letter dated
Page No. 19) 20.10.2011 which letter does not bear
thereby causing loss the genuine signatures of S.K. Chanana
of Rs.3,59,250/- to (as opined by the handwriting expert).
Delhi Jal Board. This bill produced by M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services is at page
19 and the Proprietor of M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services has failed to
provide the vouchers of the
manufacturer/the persons/firm from
whom he had procured the materials
mentioned in his above mentioned bill.
The handwriting expert vide his report
dated 30.01.2015 opined that Q88 is not
the signatures of S.K. Chanana and
hence primafacie the authorization
letter itself is forged and Mr. S.K.
Chanana had not authorized M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services to execute
the work as dealer of the manufacturer.
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the beneficiaries of the work
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
executed. The facts from where they had
procured this authorization/ quotations
is within the special knowledge of the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services namely Mr. Raman
Gupta (accused no. 3).
9. Bill No. 13/609 The perusal of the note sheet file D11
dated 21.02.2012 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.3,50,000/- which M/s Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 4/15) dated 04.11.2011, it is specifically
Rs.22,77,600/- are mentioned that the quotations were
the rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D11 letter dated 20.10.2011, which letter
Page No. 32C) does not bear the genuine signatures of
thereby causing loss S.K. Chanana (as opined by the
of Rs.19,27,600/- to handwriting expert). This bill produced
Delhi by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services is at page 32/C and the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the Jal Board.
manufacturer/the persons/ firm from
whom he had procured the materials
mentioned in his above mentioned bill.
The handwriting expert vide his report
dated 30.01.2015 opined that Q74 is not
the signatures of S.K. Chanana and
hence primafacie the authorization
letter itself is forged and Mr. S.K.
Chanana had not authorized M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services to execute
the work as dealer of the manufacturer.
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the beneficiaries of the work
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
executed. The facts from where they had
procured this authorization/ quotations
is within the special knowledge of the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services namely Mr. Raman
Gupta (accused no. 3).
10. Bill No. 13/638 The perusal of the note sheet file D12
dated 12.03.2012 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.1,15,195/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 3/15) dated 24.01.2012, it is specifically
Rs.4,74,800/- are the mentioned that the quotations were
rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D12 letter dated 09.01.2012 which letter
Page No. 20C) does not bear the genuine signatures of
thereby causing loss S.K. Chanana (as opined by the expert).
of Rs.3,59,605/- to This bill produced by M/s. Metro
Delhi Jal Board. Projects and Sales Services is at page
20/C and the Proprietor of the M/s
Metro Projects and Sales Services has
failed to provide the vouchers of the
manufacturer/the persons/firm from
whom he had procured the materials
mentioned in his above mentioned bill.
The handwriting expert vide his report
dated 30.01.2015 opined that Q80 is not
the signatures of S.K. Chanana and
hence primafacie the authorization
letter itself is forged and Mr. S.K.
Chanana had not authorized M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services to execute
the work as dealer of the manufacturer.
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the beneficiaries of the work
executed. The facts from where they had
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
procured this authorization/ quotations
is within the special knowledge of the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services namely Mr. Raman
Gupta (accused no. 3).
11. Bill No. 13/642 The perusal of the note sheet file D13
dated 12.03.2012 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.1,83,630/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are rate of being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 7/15) dated 27.01.2012, it is specifically
Rs.6,03,700/- are the mentioned that the quotations were
rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3) (D13 letter dated 30.12.2011, which letter
Page No. 28C) does not bear the genuine signatures of
thereby causing loss S.K. Chanana (as opined by the
of Rs.4,20,070/- to handwriting expert). This bill produced
Delhi Jal Board. by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services is at page 28/C and the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer/the
persons/firm from whom he had
procured the materials mentioned in his
above mentioned bill. The handwriting
expert vide his report dated 30.01.2015
opined that Q76 is not the signatures of
S.K. Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
the work executed. The facts from where
they had procured this authorization/
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
12. Bill No. 14/663 The perusal of the note sheet file D14
dated 22.03.2012 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.3,50,000/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 4/15) dated 27.01.2012, it is specifically
Rs.22,77,600/- are mentioned that the quotations were
the rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D14 letter dated 24.12.2011. This bill
Page produced by M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services is at page 20/C and the
Proprietor of No. 20C) thereby causing
loss of Rs.19,27,600/- to Delhi Jal
Board. M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer/the
persons/firm from whom he had
procured the materials mentioned in his
above mentioned bill. M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services are the
beneficiaries of the work executed. The
facts from where they had procured this
authorization/ quotations is within the
special knowledge of the Proprietor of
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
13. Bill No. 13/646 The perusal of the note sheet file D15
dated 19.03.2012 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.1,96,305/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 7/15) dated 15.02.2012, it is specifically
Rs.7,87,100/- are the mentioned that the quotations were
rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D15 letter dated 24.01.2012 which letter
Page No. 30C) does not bear the genuine signatures of
thereby causing loss S.K. Chanana (as opined by the
of Rs.5,90,795/- to handwriting expert). This bill produced
Delhi Jal Board. by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services is at page 30/C and the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer/ the
persons/ firm from whom he had
procured the materials mentioned in his
above mentioned bill. The handwriting
expert vide his report dated 30.01.2015
opined that Q77 is not the signatures of
S.K. Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
the work executed. The facts from where
they had procured this authorization/
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
14. Bill No. 14/695 The perusal of the note sheet file D16
dated 09.06.2012 for shows that the work was assigned to
Rs.1,45,775/- which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
are the rate of being sole dealer of M/s. EPTP Ltd. for
manufacturer (D46 Delhi region for EPTP Ltd. In the note
Page No. 8/15) dated 27.04.2012 it is specifically
Rs.6,51,800/- are the mentioned that the quotations were
rate charged by provided by the manufacturer vide its
accused no.3 (D16 letter dated 06.04.2012, which letter
Page No. 21C) does not bear the genuine signatures of
thereby causing a S.K. Chanana (as opined by the
loss of Rs.5,06,025/- handwriting expert). This bill produced
to Delhi Jal Board. by M/s. Metro Projects and Sales
Services is at page 21/C and the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services has failed to provide the
vouchers of the manufacturer/ the
persons/ firm from whom he had
procured the materials mentioned in his
above mentioned bill. The handwriting
expert vide his report dated 30.01.2015
opined that Q81 is not the signatures of
S.K. Chanana and hence primafacie the
authorization letter itself is forged and
Mr. S.K. Chanana had not authorized
M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
to execute the work as dealer of the
manufacturer. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services are the beneficiaries of
the work executed. The facts from where
they had procured this authorization/
quotations is within the special
knowledge of the Proprietor of M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services
namely Mr. Raman Gupta (accused no.
3).
15. Bill No. 11/532 The perusal of the note sheet file D17
dated 10.10.2011 for shows that the bill produced by M/s.
Rs.77,700/- which Metro Projects and Sales Services is at
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
are the rate of page 20 and the Proprietor of M/s.
manufacturer (D46 Metro Projects and Sales Services has
Page No. 1/15) failed to provide the vouchers of the
Rs.7,99,680/- are the manufacturer/ the persons/ firm from
rate charged by whom he had procured the materials
accused no.3 (D17 mentioned in his above mentioned bill.
Page No. 20) M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
thereby causing loss are the beneficiaries of the work
of Rs.7,21,980/- to executed. The facts from where they had
Delhi Jal Board. procured this authorization/ quotations
is within the special knowledge of the
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services namely Mr. Raman
Gupta (accused no. 3).
53. Trial Court has further found that total 16 (Sixteen) work
orders for the procurement of spare parts and repair work amounting
to Rs.1,85,06,197/- (Rs. One Crore, Eighty Five Lacs, Six Thousand
One Hundred Ninety Seven only) were issued by Petitioners - Mr.
Jagdish Kumar Arora and Mr. Satish Kumar Chauhan and the then
Assistant Engineer Mr. S. K. Yadav (expired) in favour of Petitioner -
Mr. Raman Gupta claiming to be the authorized dealer of M/s.
Essential Power and Transmission (Pvt.) Ltd. for supply of
"Essenpro" make spare parts/ repair work.
54. With regard to the 16 work orders the finding of the Trial Court
based on material produced by the prosecution is as under:
1. Work order 70 dated 13.10.2011, contract agreement
number 65/1112, Bill No. 546, Book No.11 amounting to
Rs.9,47,100/- dated 31.10.2011 for procurement of
transmission units for PST and FST, Nitholi under
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Keshopur Plant, SWDVI. The authorization letter for this
work issued from the office of authorized representative
of M/s EPTP Ltd. was forged and the local purchase
vouchers of worm gearbox H100 and H125 of Metal
Craft India and not of the authorized manufacturer of the
proprietary items which are not available in the open
market.
2. Work order no. 65 dated 26.09.2011, contract agreement
number 62/1112, Bill No. 531 Book No.11 amounting to
Rs.4,99,565/- dated 10.10.2011 for procurement of gear
oil for aerators at STP Nilothi. The authorization letter
for this work issued from the office of authorized
representative of M/s EPTP Ltd. was forged and the local
purchase vouchers of M/s Indo Silicon Pvt. 3/7, Block C,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi showing purchase of ES Oil 50 Litres
was received from the supplier by the accused Satish
Kumar Chauhan and the purchase vouchers produced by
the accused Raman Gupta was forged to show the
material as "essenpro" make even when the ES Oil is an
outsourced item of the manufacturer and is easily
available in the open market.
3. Work Order No.29 dated 04.07.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 26/1112, M. No.309/14, regarding
procurement of spares for gear boxes at STP, Nilothi for
Rs.4,94,424/- dated 14.07.11, (Authorization found
forged).
4. Work Order No.13 dated 17.06.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 14/1112, (CBI/ M.No. 115/14), regarding
Improvement of aerator units by servicing and alignment
of housings at 40 MGD STP Nilothi Plant for
Rs.8,93,871/- dated 15.07.11, (Authorization found
forged) Job work.
5. Work Order No.33 dated 11.07.2011, Contract
Agreement (C.A) No. 30/1112, (CBI/M.No. 117/14),
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
regarding Procurement of half rigid couplings between
aerators and agitators at STP Nilothi for Rs. 4,97,250/-
dated 26.07.11, (Authorization found forged).
6. Work Order No.68 dated 05.10.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 64/1112, M. No.301/14, regarding improving
of aeration units by servicing and procurement and
replacement of shaft agitator and coupling/internal parts
of helical gear boxes model No. EPAHD4SP at 40 MGD
Nilothi STP for Rs.24,96,193/dated 15.11.11,
(Authorization found forged) Job work.
7. Work Order No.84 dated 05.1.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 78/1112, M.No.121/14, regarding procurement
of impeller and hollow shaft for aeration plant at STP
Nilothi under Keshopur plant for Rs.24,30,000/- dated
03.12.11, (Authorization found forged)
8. Work Order No.71 dated 13.10.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No .67/1112, M.No.303/14, regarding procurement
of wheels and half rigid coupling of Essenpro make
model no. EPAHD4, at STP Nilothi for Rs.9,85,950/-
dated 311011, (Authorization found forged).
9. Work Order No.86 dated 29.11.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 81/1112, M. No.123/14, regarding
procurement of oil distribution accessories for
transmission units at STP Nilothi for Rs. 4,94,212/- dated
22.12.11, (Authorization found forged) Procurement
case.
10. Work Order No.87 dated 29.11.11, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 82/1112, M. No.304/14, regarding
procurement of transmission units of surface aerator at
40 MGD, STP Nilothi for Rs.22,95,821/- dated 21.02.12,
(Authorization found forged).
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
11. Work Order No.138 dated 10.02.12, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 127/1112, M. No.310/14, regarding
procurement of intermediate pinion and rolling wheels
and seals for EPAHD/4SP model gear at STP Nilothi for
Rs.4,98,540/- dated 12.03.12, (Authorization found
forged) Procurement case.
12. Work Order No.140 dated 10.02.12, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 129/1112, M. No.305/14, regarding
Refurbishment of Aeration unit comprising Aerators and
Agitator for EPAAHD 4SP 40 MGD STP Nilothi for
Rs.7,87,446/- dated 12.03.12, (Authorization found
forged).Job work.
13. Work Order No.142 dated 16.02.12, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No.133/1112, M. No.306/14, regarding
procurement of transmission units of surface aerator at
aeration units at 40 MGD, STP Nilothi for Rs.22,95,821/-
dated 22.03.12, (Authorization found forged).
14. Work Order No.149 dated 23.02.12, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 138/1112, M. No.307/14, regarding renovation
of transmission units at Aeration Plant for EPAHD 4SP
Model gear units at STP Nilothi for Rs.9,92,964/- dated
19.03.12 (Authorization found forged).
15. Work Order No. 9 dated 28.4.12, Contract Agreement
(C.A) No. 07/1213, M. No.311/14, regarding
Improvement the functioning of Agitator and Aerator of
Essenpro make at STP Nilothi for Rs.9,75,480/- dated
09.06.12. (Authorization found forged).
16. Work Order No.32 dated 11.07.2011, Contract
Agreement (C.A) No. 29/1112, (CBI/M. No. 116/14),
regarding Procurement of gear motors with worm gear
type vertical at grit chamber at Nilothi STP for
Rs.8,99,640/- dated 10.10.11 (Authorization not
attached) Procurement case.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
55. The record of investigation prima facie shows that M/s.
Essential Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, the manufacturer,
had not provided the rates of some of the items. M/s. Metro Projects
and Sales Services, though claimed themselves to be authorized
dealers of M/s. Essential Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai,
procured material from the local market and not from the
manufacturer.
56. The letters, by which M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services
was allegedly authorized by late Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana, were
opined by the handwriting expert as not bearing the signatures of late
Mr. Satish Kumar Chanana and thus prima facie forged. M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services are the beneficiaries of the work executed
based on alleged forged authorisation.
57. Further, some of the parts were not procured directly from the
manufacturer but from Indo Silicon Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Metro Projects and
Sales Services claimed to have supplied material of "Essenpro" make
for an amount of Rs. 4,70,880/- but the rate provided by the
manufacturer for the material provided by the said bill was
Rs.54,500/- thereby a loss was caused to the Delhi Jal Board of
Rs.4,16,380/-.
58. Petitioner - Mr. Raman Gupta i.e. the Proprietor of M/s. Metro
Projects and Sales Services failed to provide vouchers of the
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
manufacturer/the person/firm from whom he had procured some of
the material. Further, some material was received by the Officials of
Delhi Jal Board without any voucher of the manufacturer/ the person/
firm from whom the material mentioned in the bill was procured.
59. Investigation has revealed that work was assigned to M/s.
Metro Projects and Sales Services claiming to be the sole dealer of
M/s. Essential Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai for Delhi
region. Letters dated 28.07.2011, 12.09.2011, 20.09.2011, 20.10.2011,
24.12.2011, 30.12.2011, 09.01.2012 , 24.01.2012 by which the
quotations were provided by the manufacturer, as per the handwriting
expert do not bear the genuine signatures of late Mr. Satish Kumar
Chanana.
60. As per the prosecution, during the period of 2009 to 2012, the
original manufacturer M/s. Essential Power & Transmission Pvt. Ltd.
had supplied items only to the tune of Rs. 32,56,500/- to M/s. Roltec
Marketing Engineers, its authorized representative in Delhi. However,
work orders amounting to Rs. 2,78,86,452/- were awarded to M/s.
Metro Projects & Sales Services by the Delhi Jal Board, prima facie
causing a huge wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and
corresponding wrongful gain to the supplier firm M/s. Metro Projects
& Sales Services.
61. Direct beneficiary of the forged authorisation letters and forged
quotations is M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services whose proprietor
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
is the Petitioner Mr. Raman Gupta.
62. Investigation has shown that repeatedly spare parts had been
received without the requisite vouchers of the manufacturer/ the
person/ firm from whom the material mentioned in the bills was
procured. Parts were received, entered in the measurement books, bills
processed for payment and payments released, without ensuring
compliance of the requisite procedures prescribed by the Instructional
Orders.
63. As per the prosecution there was non compliance of the
Instructional Order dated 07.03.2002 which stipulates that the
department will release the payment only after written confirmation
accepting the supply order along with a copy of the order, duly
stamped and signed has been received by the Executive Engineer from
the manufacturer.
64. As per the prosecution, the letters seeking confirmation were
deliberately written to the Delhi office and not to the Mumbai office
which prima facie was an indication of a conspiracy between the
accused persons.
65. Based on the material produced by the Prosecution, trial court
has held that, there is sufficient material on record to show that during
the period 2009 - 2012 all the accused i.e. Petitioner Mr. Jagdish
Kumar Arora, Executive Engineer (E&M) and Petitioner - Mr. Satish
Kumar Chauhan, Junior Engineer (E&M), SDQVI, Delhi Jal Board
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
entered into a criminal conspiracy with Petitioner - Mr. Raman Gupta
Proprietor of M/s. Metro Projects and Sales Services to cause
wrongful loss to Delhi Jal Board by using false authorization letter/
documents.
66. Based on material produced, Trial Court has found that
Petitioner - Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora being the Executive Engineer
(In-charge) was responsible for the maintenance of sewage treatment
plant and procurement of spare parts etc.. All items of work in a
project, as per the CPWD Manual, were to be measured and recorded
by the Petitioner - Mr. Satish Kumar Chauhan Junior Engineer of the
work under the supervision of the Executive Engineer. The Junior
Engineer was responsible to check 100% correctness of the work and
the Executive Engineer was required to check 10% of the
measurements recorded by his subordinates.
67. Trial Court has further prima facie found that the quotations/
authorization letters issued by the official representative of the
manufacturers i.e. M/s. Essential Power Transmissions Pvt. Ltd. to
Delhi Jal Board were forged in all the cases. Further, that there is
sufficient material to prima facie show that Petitioner - Mr. Raman
Gupta had supplied duplicate material at exorbitant rates, procured
from local market, without procuring the same from the manufacturer
and further provided purchase vouchers of local firm M/s. Metal Craft
India against a proprietary item which was not available in the open
market.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
68. Further, there is material on record to show that the spare parts
i.e. Input Pinion, Input Wheel, Out Put Wheel, Out Put Pinion, Top
cover, pedal aerator (fan), Hollow shaft for pedal, input coupling etc.
of 'Essenpro' make gear boxes shown to have been used, were not
supplied by the manufacturer M/s. Essential Power Transmission Pvt.
Ltd.
69. Trial Court has further prima facie found that, in furtherance of
the criminal conspiracy, Petitioners - Mr. Satish Kumar Chauhan and
Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora had cleared the payment to the Petitioner -
Mr. Raman Gupta despite him producing vouchers of local purchase
for some material and not producing any purchase vouchers for other
material.
70. The Judgment in A. Subair v. State of Kerala (supra) relied
upon by Ms. Rebecca John, Leaned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora is not applicable to the facts of
the present case for the reason that the said judgment is in an appeal
against conviction. Whereas the present case is at the stage of framing
of charge.
71. Further, in the present case, there is an allegation of substantial
loss to the exchequer in as much as the cost of spare parts supplied by
the manufacturer to its authorised representative in Delhi - M/s.
Roltec Marketing Engineers is Rs. 32,56,500/- as against the amount
of Rs. Rs. 2,78,86,452/- charged to the Delhi Jal Board. There is
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
prima facie material to show substantial loss to the Delhi Jal Board
from the said procurement.
72. As far as proof of demand or request of a valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage from the public servant is concerned that is a
matter of trial. Where there is prima facie material to show substantial
loss to the exchequer in the execution of a contract, grave suspicion
arises against the Petitioners of having committed the alleged offence.
73. The judgment in the case of State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan
(supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as it was
passed in an appeal arising out of an order of conviction and the
present case is at the stage of framing of charge. Further, it may be
noted that criminal conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and there is a
great possibility of the prosecution not being able to obtain direct
evidence at the time of filing of charge sheet and has to rely upon
circumstantial evidence. Where there is prima facie evidence of
substantial loss to the exchequer in the execution of the works,
prescribed procedures for placing of orders and receiving of materials
not being followed and forgery of authorisation, grave suspicion of
criminal conspiracy would arise, necessitating framing of a charge of
criminal conspiracy.
74. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan
Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290 relying upon the judgment in R.
Venkatkrishnan v. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737 held that "A criminal
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not
impossible, to obtain direct evidence. The manner and circumstances
in which the offence has been committed, and the level of involvement
of the accused persons are relevant factors. Each conspirator plays
his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the
common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in the
general conspiracy, to accomplish the common object."
75. Further, relying on the judgment in State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Supreme Court
further held that "Conspiracy is mostly proved by circumstantial
evidence by taking into account the cumulative effect of the
circumstances indicating the guilt of the accused, rather than
adopting an approach by isolating the role played by each of the
accused. The acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and
clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and
its execution."
76. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988) 3 SCC 609 the
Supreme Court held that "the most important ingredient in the offence
of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an
illegal act. The prosecution will have to rely upon circumstantial
evidence. The court must enquire whether the persons are
independently pursuing the same unlawful object or whether they
have come together for the pursuit of the unlawful object. The offence
of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of the
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
agreement. However, the same need not be proved, nor is it necessary
to prove the actual words of communication. It is sufficient if there is
a tacit understanding between the conspirators for the execution of
the common illegal object. In cases of criminal conspiracy, better
evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever
available."
77. As prima facie noticed hereinabove, procurements have been
made at exorbitant rates, spare parts received without the requisite
vouchers, entered in the measurement books, bills processed for
payment and payments released, without ensuring compliance of the
requisite procedures prescribed by the Instructional Orders.
78. Further the Judgement in Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of
Maharashtra, (supra) relied upon by learned senior counsel for the
Petitioner also does not further the case of the petitioners as the
Supreme Court in the said case has held that though the Court cannot
act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but the
Court has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court
but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
79. The Supreme Court has further held that while considering the
question of framing of charges, the judge has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made
out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained
the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.
80. As noticed hereinabove, there is prima facie material to show
substantial loss to the exchequer in the execution of the works,
prescribed procedures for placing of orders and receiving of materials
not being followed and forgery of authorisation which gives rise to
grave suspicion.
81. There is also no merit in the contention of learned senior
counsel appearing for Mr. Raman Gupta that as the co-accused Mr.
Jagdish Kumar Arora was not in the seat prior during the period 2009
- 2011, the charge of conspiracy could not be framed. The allegation
of the prosecution is with regard to several bills during the period
2009 - 2012. Even if Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora was not in the
relevant seat between 2009 - 2011, he was certainly in the seat after
2011 and has dealt with and processed some of the bills in question.
Even if there was no criminal conspiracy prior to Mr. Jagdish Kumar
Arora coming into position but there is prima facie material to show
that he has handled some of the impugned bills and transactions and
the circumstances give rise to grave suspicion of his involvement in
the conspiracy.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
82. Looked at from any angle, there is no infirmity in the finding
returned by the Trial Court that grave suspicion arises against the
petitioners warranting framing of charges under Sections 120B read
with Sections 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read
with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
along with substantive offences.
83. I find no merit in the Petitions. The Petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
84. It is clarified that the observations hereinabove shall not amount
to an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations against the
petitioners.
85. Order Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
March 25, 2021
HJ
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:26.03.2021 21:55:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
