Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Pb on 30 June, 2022
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 01.06.2022
Pronounced on: 30.06.2022
1. CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M)
Inderjit Singh Tandi
... Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
2. CRA-S-742-SB-2004 (O&M)
Pritam Singh
... Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
3. CRA-S-883-SB-2004 (O&M)
Raj Kumar
... Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
1 of 38
::: Downloaded on - 01-07-2022 21:06:32 :::
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -2-
4. CRA-S-931-SB-2004 (O&M)
Gurnam Singh
... Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate,
Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Bindra, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-712 & 742-SB-2004).
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-883-SB-2004).
Mr. Vipul Goel, Advocate for
Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-931-SB-2004).
Ms. Shubhra Singh, Sr. Panel Counsel
for the respondent-CBI.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Present four appeals are filed challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala,
holding appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh, Gurnam Singh and Raj
Kumar guilty of offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC. In addition to this,
appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi, Pritam Singh and Gurnam Singh were held
guilty of offence under Section 13(1) (d) punishable under Section 13(2) of
2 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -3-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and appellants Inderjit
Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh were also convicted under Section 167 IPC as
well as the order of sentence of even date, vide which all four appellants were
directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 01 year under Section 120-B IPC read
with Section 420 IPC, 02 years R.I. under Section 420 IPC, 01 year R.I. under
Section 471 IPC, 01 year R.I. under Section 468 IPC and 02 years R.I. under
Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. Apart from this,
appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh were also sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of 06 months under Section 167 IPC and to pay total
fine of Rs.15,000/- by appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Gurnam Singh each,
fine of Rs.14,000/- by appellant Pritam Singh and fine of Rs.10,000/- by
appellant Raj Kumar, in R.C. No.14 datd 12.0201998 under Section 120-B IPC
read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC
Act.
Brief facts of the case are that this Court took suo motu action on a
newspaper item dated 13.05.1996 captioned as 'Ghost Units eating up subsidy'
and while treating the same as writ petition, directed the CBI to conduct an
investigation. In pursuance of the directions, CBI registered the aforesaid FIR
against unknown officials/officers of Industries Department of Punjab Govt.
and some private persons. Later on, during the investigation, it was found that
accused Raj Kumar floated four bogus firms by the names of M/s Moon
Industries, Chhatti Wind Gate, Amritsar, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, M/s
Punjab Engineering Corporation, Amritsar and M/s National Steel Industries
3 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -4-
and with a view to get benefit of the Industrial Policy and Incentive Code, 1989,
commonly known as Subsidy Benefit Scheme, he approached the Industries
Department, Amritsar claiming to have purchased machinery worth
Rs.6,91,900/- from M/s Atul Traders, New Delhi for M/s Moon Industries,
machinery worth Rs.8,11,500/- from M/s Charanjit Engineering, Putligarh,
Amritsar for M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, machinery worth Rs.3,01,900/- from
M/s Punjab Machine Tools for M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation and
machinery worth Rs.1,25,800/- from M/s Atul Traders for M/s National Steel
Industries. He forged false and fictitious documents/bills of purchase of said
machinery for all the four firms. He filed applications for subsidy on the basis
of forged and fictitious documents. At the relevant time, accused Pritam Singh
was the General Manager, while Gurnam Singh and Inderjit Singh Tandi were
working as SPIOs respectively in the office of General Manager, District
Industries Centre, Amritsar. It was their duty to verify the facts stated by the
subsidy claimants and to recommend, sanction and disburse the subsidy only to
the genuine claimants. As per allegations in the final report, accused Gurnam
Singh falsely verified the forged machinery bills and recommended the subsidy
qua firms M/s Moon Industries, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries and M/s Punjab
Engineering Corporation, while accused Inderjit Singh Tandi verified the bills
and recommended the same qua firm M/s National Steel Industries. Accused
Pritam Singh further recommended the subsidy and after it was allowed by the
District Level Committee, of which he was also Member Secretary, issued the
sanctioning letters to accused Raj Kumar and the subsidy amount to the tune of
4 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -5-
Rs.4,01,980/- was paid. The CBI thus found that all of them entered into a
criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, by misusing their official
positions as public servants, facilitated the payment of subsidy amounts in
favour of bogus firms of Raj Kumar, who was the proprietor. They also found
that various firms, from which the machinery was allegedly purchased by
accused Raj Kumar on the basis of forged and fictitious bills, were not in
existence. After completing the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed.
The trial Court, thereafter, framed the charge against all the
accused persons under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 167, 468,
471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act.
In prosecution evidence, PW1 Vijay Kumar Chauhan, proprietor of
M/s Arun Roadlines appeared and stated that he was an agent of M/s Bhandari
Inter-State Carriers, Jalandhar. His contract came to an end in June, 1989.
photocopy of a bill Ex.PW1/1 was put to him, which was objected to by the
defence counsel and the objection was kept open. This witness, on seeing the
photocopy of this document, stated that same do not bear his signatures. In
cross-examination, this witness stated that on photocopy Ex.PW1/1, signatures
are not visible, but volunteered that they are not his signatures. He further stated
that he could not say that what is the position of signatures on the original of the
photocopy i.e. Ex.PW1/1. This witness admitted that it is correct that he had
crossed the printed name of M/s Bhandari Inter-State Carriers on the bills,
which were still with him, even after expiry of the contract with M/s Bhandari
5 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -6-
Inter-State Carriers. This witness stated that he had a rubber stamp with cross
marks and he used to put it on M/s Bhandari Inter-State Carriers on the bills. He
further stated that said rubber stamp was not handed over to CBI, as he had
destroyed the same. This witness further stated that his office was at 35, New
Grain Market, Jalandhar, which he took on rent from one Karnail Singh Nijjar,
an NRI and denied the suggestion that he concocted the story of rubber stamp.
He further stated that till 1996, he had only one worker, who name was
Subhash.
PW2 Sohan Singh stated that Ex.PW1/1, which is photocopy of a
bill, do not relate to M/s Bhandari Inter-State Carriers.
PW3 Gurdeep Singh stated that he was having business under the
name and style of M/s Makkar Trading Co. at 34, New Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar
and M/s Arun Roadlines was having business in the adjoining shop No.35 from
1986 to 1988. Thereafter, the shop was occupied by South Freight Movers. One
Vijay Kumar was running the business of M/s Arun Roadlines, as he was
having agency of M/s Bhandari Inter-State Carriers. In cross-examination, this
witness stated that he had not brought any title deed of SCF No.34 and denied
suggestion that he was not doing any business in SCF No.34. In further cross-
examination, this witness pleaded ignorance about owner of SCF No.35 as well
as whether M/s Arun Roadlines was a partnership firm or proprietorship
concern.
PW4 Manohar Singh stated that J.K. Textile Engineering is
running by his son Navtej Singh since 1984 and he had not seen any concern by
6 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -7-
the name of M/s Charanjit Engineering Company. In cross-examination, this
witness stated that Putligarh is a big locality and there are 100 of industries and
it is possible that concern with the name of M/s Charanjit Engineering
Company exist in Putligarh and this fact is not in his knowledge.
PW5 Amarjit Singh Sidhu, Additional Controller of Store,
Department of Industries, Sector-10, Chandigarh stated that he was Deputy
Director, Department of Industries from 1996 to 1999. The State Govt. floated
industrial policies for giving incentive to industrialists. These policies are
provided in Industrial Policy and Incentive Code, 1989 published by
Department of Industries, Punjab. The General Manager was associated with
District Level Committee. Prior to 1992, District Level Committee was
competent to grant subsidy upto Rs.2.2 lacs, which was later on enhanced to
Rs.5.00 lacs. This witness further stated that industries mentioned in Annexure-
II in the Industrial Policy and Incentive Code, 1989 were not eligible for
subsidy. The department used to get report with regard to functional status of
the industry and thereafter, subsidy was to be released. This witness proved
documents Ex.PW5/1 to PW5/15; various letters/report of District Level
Committee, on the basis of which, subsidies were released. All these documents
were photocopies and it is stated that original of these documents were annexed
with the application submitted to District Level Committee. This witness further
stated that Rs.1,08,900/- was given as subsidy to M/s Moon Industries, Chhati
Wind Gate, Amritsar. Ex.PW5/16 was signed by Pritam Singh and
recommendation Ex.PW5/17 was signed by Gurnam Singh. Similarly, this
7 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -8-
witness proved the documents/reports of accused persons Ex.PW5/18 to
Ex.PW5/31 regarding release of subsidy to accused Raj Kumar on verification
by Gurnam Singh. This witness further stated that as per policy, industrial unit
should remain in production for a period of 05 years from the date, when it
commences production and in case of failure, department was to make a report.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that policy Ex.PW5/1 was
notified in the Gazettee on 31.03.1989 and he had not dealt with files of M/s
National Steel Industries and M/s Moon Industries. This witness further stated
that he had not seen Gurnam Singh writing or signing and he had never signed
in his presence. District Level Committee is headed by Deputy Commissioner.
This witness pleaded ignorance regarding the fact that M/s Moon Industries was
closed before 1994. In further cross-examination, he stated that Ex.PW5/21 and
Ex.PW5/33 are the documents relating to release of subsidy to M/s National
Industry, which were prepared on the basis of application given by the said
industrial unit. In the documents submitted by the unit, a loan of Rs.9.00 lacs
was shown with cash credit limit of Rs.2.00 lacs, as per project report, which
was prepared by Chartered Accountant and the payment was made directly by
bank to the supplier of machinery and field staff did not verify this fact. He
further stated that later on, practice of visiting of field staff to the industrial unit
was discontinued and as per the policy, affidavit and undertaking of the
industrial unit was taken that it is functional and remain functional for a period
of 05 years. Subsidy to M/s National Industry was released on 30.08.1991. This
witness further stated that Inderjit Singh Tandi was transferred in 1991 and later
8 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -9-
on, J.S. Mohal was Joint Director in 1996, who prepared a report Ex.PW5/34.
This witness was confronted with the report and stated that no fault was found
with Inderjit Singh. He further stated that none of the documents, which were
attested by Inderjit Singh pertaining to M/s National Industry was found to be
ingenuine or fake and certificate of registration submitted by M/s National
Industry was not found to be bogus later on.
PW6 Jai Parkash Gupta, Industrial Advisor-cum-Additional
Director, Department of Industry stated that he handed over the documents vide
seizure memo Ex.PW6/1, which bear his signatures and of Surjit Singh, General
Manager. The memo Ex.PW6/2 bears his signatures and Ex.PW6/3 bears
signatures of Pritam Singh. He deposed that from December, 1996 to April,
1999, he remained posted as General Manager, District Industry Centre,
Amritsar and tried to locate the unit M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, M/s National
Steel Industry, M/s Moon Industry and M/s Punjab Engineering Works, but
could not trace them, as he was not familiar with Amritsar. He asked 2-3
persons of the area, but they said that industries are not in existence.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that he do no remember,
when he visited M/s National Steel Industry, however, on seeing the file, he
stated that he recollect that he visited the area known as Bhagtan Wala Gate
opposite Dana Mandi, Amritsar along with Baljinder Walia, Project Manager of
his office, who told him about the place, where the industrial unit was located
earlier. In further cross-examination, this witness stated that Baljinder Walia
also pointed towards that M/s Mahajan Steel Industry was in existence at Peer
9 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -10-
Shah Road, outside Gate Hakima, Amritsar and similarly, M/s Moon Industry
was located at Chhati Wind Gate, Amritsar and M/s Punjab Engineering Works
was situated at Gill Wali Gate, Amritsar, as informed by Baljinder Walia,
Project Manager. This witness, in cross-examination, also proved certain
memos Ex.PW6/5 to PW6/7.
PW7 Baljit Singh, Senior Assistant, Director, Industries, Punjab
stated that he handed over 05 files and letter to CBI vide seizure memo
Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/2.
PW8 Surinder Singh Mali, a political worker, stated that Lakhwant
Singh Mali is his younger brother and was working under M/s Punjab Machine
Tools in 1986. Due to disturbance in Punjab, he shifted to Chandigarh in 1988-
89. This witness was shown photocopies of the bills Mark PW8/A to Mark
PW8/C, which did not bearing signatures of his brother.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that he is illiterate and has
not received any education in school.
PW9 Lakhwant Singh Malhi stated that he was running a business
by the name of M/s Punjab Machine Tools at Batala, which was started in 1985-
86. He also stated that he had seen bills Marks PW8/A to Mark PW8/C, which
did not bear his signatures and he had not supplied any goods or received
payment. In 1989, he shifted to Chandigarh.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that M/s Punjab Machine
Tools was not registered with the Registrar of Firms and he could not rule out
whether there may be any other concern by the same name of M/s Punjab
10 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -11-
Machine Tools at the relevant period.
PW10 B.D. Dhuppar, Additional Director, Industries, Department
of Industries and Commerce, Punjab stated that he joined the department in
1979 and worked as such till 1998. This witness deposed about the policy
instructions and the procedure for grant of incentive by way of subsidy. He
stated that report was received from the field functionaries and a seniority list
was prepared. As per policy of 1989, it was mandatory for an industrial unit to
remain in production at least for a period of 05 years from the date of
commencement of production.
In cross-examination, this witness admitted a document dated
27.08.1991 Ex.PW10/D1, which bears signatures of accused Pritam Singh and
report Ex.PW5/34, which bears his signatures. This witness stated that High
Corut had directed CBI to conduct inquiry and directions were with regard to
disbursement of subsidy during 1995-96 and he do not know that any such
report was submitted by CBI.
PW11 K.P. Singh, Superintendent, Punjab Secretariat, Finance
Department proved the sanction orders for the prosecution of Gurnam Singh,
Pritam Singh and Inderjit Singh Tandi as Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/3.
PW12 Om Parkash, Post Master, Post Office, New Delhi proved a
letter Mark PW12/A. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined
by Public Prosecutor and stated that postal envelope Mark PW12/A was
returned to his office. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that he
do not remember that CBI has seized any record and there are cuttings on the
11 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -12-
endorsement of Mark PW12/A, which he cannot tell and only the Postman can
till.
PW13 Jai Bir Singh stated that he was working as Assistant
Vigilance Officer in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi and proved
a letter Ex.PW13/1, which bears signatures of Ramzee Singh, Vigilance Officer
regarding information of telephone Nos.5735017 and 587266.
PW14 Sarabjit Singh, an employee posted in the office of Deputy
Commissioner, Amritsar from July, 1987 to May, 1992, stated that he was
Chairman of District Level Single Window Committee, which was dealing with
sanctioning of subsidy to industrial units and proved minutes Ex.PW6/4, which
bears his signatures regarding sanctioning of subsidy to industrial units.
PW15 Surinderpal Singh stated that he was employed in Punjab
and Sind Bank, Janakpuri, New Delhi and handed over some documents vide
seizure memo Ex.PW15/1 to Ex.PW15/3.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that CBI neither seized
nor demanded original documents regarding opening form of M/s Atul Traders.
PW16 Hardip Singh, Project Manager, Office of GM, District
Industries Centre, Amritsar identified the signatures of Gurnam Singh on letter
and receipt Ex.PW16/1. In cross-examination, this witness stated that
Ex.PW16/1 relates to disbursement of subsidy, which was released, when the
industrial unit was functional and entire formalities were completed before
release of subsidy.
PW17 Harjit Singh, Senior Assistant, Office of GM, District
12 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -13-
Industries Centre, Amritsar stated that he handed over documents relating to
proceedings of the District Level Committee, Amritsar to CBI pertaining to M/s
Moon Industries as Ex.PW5/17 to Ex.PW5/29, which bear signatures of
Gurnam Singh and files relating to M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation,
Amritsar vide Ex.PW17/1 to Ex.PW17/9 under the signatures of Gurnam Singh
and file relating to M/s National Steel Industries vide Ex.PW17/10 to
Ex.PW17/16 as well as memos Ex.PW5/4 to Ex.PW5/15, which bear signatures
of Inderjit Singh Tandi and also the files relating to M/s Mahajan Steel Industry
Ex.PW17/2 to Ex.PW17/25 under the signatures of Gurnam Singh. This witness
further stated about disbursement of subsidy to the aforesaid firms.
In cross-examination on behalf of Gurnam Singh, this witness
stated that subsidy case was sanctioned by District Level Committee.
PW18 Satish Kumar Sharma stated that M/s Atul Traders never
carried out any work at his residential address and deposed about installation of
two telephone numbers i.e. 5705266 and 5706188 in 1980. In cross-
examination, this witness stated that he never worked with any govt. office or
never participated in any survey.
PW19 R.K. Tejpal, SDO (Enforcement), Sale Tax Department
stated that he received a letter from CBI to verify the address of M/s Atul
Traders and to find whether it is registered with Sales Tax Authorities and letter
was exhibited as Ex.PW19/1, in which it was verified that no such firm was
registered with Sales Tax Authorities.
PW20 S.K. Nigam, Assistant Director of Industries (Central Zone,
13 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -14-
Govt. of Delhi stated that CBI asked him certain information vide letter
Ex.PW20/1. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he do not remember
whether the report was made by field officer before writing the letter
Ex.PW20/1.
PW21 Lahori Ram stated that he was a Clerk in the office of
Director of Industries, Punjab and proved the documents regarding posting of
three accused persons vide Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/10.
PW22 Pardeep Malhotra, Assistant Excise and Taxation
Commissioner, Amritsar proved the memorandum under the signatures of
Partap Singh Ex.PW22/1 and two other letters as Ex.PW22/2 and Ex.PW22/3.
PW23 Gurdeep Singh Joga, Sr. Assistant Incentive Division
Officer, Industries Department proved the letters Ex.PW23/1 to Ex.PW23/5,
which were prepared by the officials of Block Level Committee. In cross-
examination, this witness stated that he never dealt with documents nor the
same were in his custody and S.L. Bhardwaj and A.S. Bhatia stand retired and
he only identified the signatures on these documents.
PW24 Harbans Lal Kukreja stated that he is residing in house
No.3009/3, West Patel Nagar with his mother and no firm/unit by the name of
M/s Atul Traders work from that place and Raj Kumar is distantly related to his
mother.
PW25 Anita Tejpal, widow of Raj Kumar stated that her husband
died in January, 2000 and complaint Ex.PW25/1 bears the signatures of her
husband. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she has no knowledge
14 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -15-
about the allegations in the complaint, which is under signatures of her husband
Raj Kumar only on the last page. She denied that her husband was involved in
two criminal cases and his anticipatory bail was declined.
PW26 Inspector Bhuri Singh, CBI (Investigating Officer) stated
that he registered the FIR Ex.PW26/1 and submitted the report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. He proved various documents with regard to investigation and
verification Ex.PW26/2 to Ex.P26/12. This witness, in cross-examination,
stated that case was registered on directions given by the High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No.10475 of 1996. The copy of the writ petition is not part of the
challan and a newspaper report was treated as writ petition. He admitted that
during 1995-96, there were 236 units, which were given subsidy to the tune of
Rs.30.00 lacs to Rs.50.00 lacs. He further stated that staff correspondent of the
newspaper has reported the certain plots in the industrial focal point are
misused and misutilized. He also stated that on completion of the investigation,
he submitted the challan and also received a complaint from one Raj Kumar.
With reference to policy/instructions, he stated that in some policies, an
undertaking was required to be given that if owner of the unit default in
continuous running of the same for five years, he will reimburse the subsidy
with interest. He never tried to collect the record of consumption of electricity
from PSEB and also did not secure the record from the concerned bank, from
where the loan facility was availed by M/s National Steel Industries, Amritsar.
In further cross-examination, this witness stated that M/s National
Steel Industries also availed loan of Rs.5.00 lacs, as per certificate issued by
15 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -16-
State Bank of India Mark PW26/D-A and statement of account Mark PW26/D-
B and electricity connection Mark PW26/D-C. He further stated that report of
M/s National Steel Industries contained report of Marwaha and Associates
Chartered Accountants and certificates are Ex.PW26/D-1 and Ex.PW26/D-2.
This witness also stated that he had seized two cheques Ex.PW17/D-2 and
Ex.PW17/D-5 and Ex.PW17/D-3 is the project report of M/s National Steel
Industries as well as electricity bill. This witness further stated that he tried to
seize the original documents of the photocopies, as subsidy was released on the
basis of photocopies and had not verified it from the bank. This witness stated
that he do not know whether the bank got the machinery of the firm insured
with Oriental Insurance Company and Raj Kumar filed a bond with M/s
National Steel Industries as Ex.PW26/D-3. He stated that regarding G.M.
Industries, he do not know if any report was sent to the Project Manager with
regard to M/s Moon Industries. This witness stated that there is a report
Ex.PW26/D-4 of the Chartered Accountant and balance sheet as Ex.PW26/D-5.
He further stated that file of M/s Moon Industries contain an undertaking of Raj
Kumar to return the subsidy along with interest in the event of default, which is
Ex.PW26/D-6. This witness admitted the balance sheet, certificate of profit and
loss prepared by the Chartered Accountant as Ex.PW26/D-7 to Ex.PW26/D-11.
Similarly, this witness also admitted the fact with regard to number of
documents submitted by M/s Mahajan Steel Industries as Ex.PW26/D-12 to
Ex.PW26/D-16.
Thereafter, CBI closed the prosecution evidence and as per
16 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -17-
statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the
incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused Raj Kumar denied having
claiming subsidy in an illegal manner for the units, which were not in existence,
rather it was stated that machinery was purchased by availing bank loan and the
bank made payment to seller of the machinery.
Similar is the statements of Gurnam Singh, Inderjit Singh Tandi
and Pritam Singh, they denied the suggestion that without following the rules
and procedure, they made recommendation for release of subsidy. All the
witnesses stated that papers were routed through proper procedure and on
verification of all the facts, subsidy was sanctioned and released.
In defence, accused Inderjit Singh Tandi produced DW1 Baldev
Raj, Sr. Assistant, State Bank of India, Amritsar and he stated that on the basis
of sanctioning, loan of Rs.5.00 lacs towards machinery and cash credit limit to
the tune of Rs.3.50 lacs was given. This witness stated that draft was paid to
M/s Atul Traders, New Delhi regarding purchase of machinery and the
insurance was taken by the bank through New India Insurance Company. The
Bank Manager and Field Officer made physical verification of the machinery
and made their report Ex.DW1/1.
In cross-examination by CBI, this witness stated that surveyor of
the insurance company also visited the spot for physical verification of
machinery.
DW2 Sumant Sood, another witness produced on behalf of Inderjit
Singh Tandi, stated that he was surveyor, deputed by New India Insurance
17 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -18-
Company to take photographs of the machinery by doing spot inspection and he
prepared photographs and negatives Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/12 and submitted
vide report Ex.DW2/13 to the Branch Manager. In cross-examination by CBI,
this witness stated that he prepared the report of making physical verification at
the spot.
DW3 Madan Lal, one another witness produced on behalf of
Inderjit Singh Tandi, stated that he is Assistant in New India Insurance
Company and proved the policy Ex.DW3/2, issued under the signatures of
Jaishree Kaur, Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company and also
proved photocopy of the survey report as Ex.DW3/A.
DW4 Jaspal Singh, produced on behalf of accused Pritam Singh,
stated that he was General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hoshiarpur and
proved the attested photocopy of Ex.DW4/1 and Ex.DW4/2 regarding duty of a
General Manager and eligibility of subsidy for an industrial unit. In cross-
examination by CBI, he stated that rules and policies are framed by the Govt.
DW5 Nirmal Singh, Clerk in the office of G.M., DIC, Amritsar,
produced on behalf of Gurnam Singh, produced the office orders Ex.DW5/1 to
Ex.DW5/3 regarding posting of Pritam Singh.
DW6 Harbhajan Singh, produced on behalf of accused Raj Kumar,
stated that he knew Raj Kumar, who started four factories, which were installed
in 1990-91 and were closed in 1996-97. He was visiting the said factories and
machinery was installed in his presence.
The trial Court framed following points for determination of cases
18 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -19-
of the appellants: -
(a) Whether the subsidy has been illegally and wrongly released to
four industrial units namely M/s Moon Industries, M/s Mahajan
Steel Industries, M/s Punjab Engineering Corporation and M/s
National Steel Industries, by the accused in conspiracy with each
other?
(b) Whether the sanctioned accorded for the prosecution of the
accused is legal and valid?
(c) Whether the CBI is competent to investigate the case?
Thereafter, the trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 15.03.2004, held the appellants guilty of aforesaid
offences and sentenced them to undergo maximum imprisonment for a period
of two years with a direction that all the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
The appellants preferred appeals before this Court and during
pendency of the same, their sentence was suspended.
During pendency of these appeals, one of the appellant namely
Gurnam Singh died on 09.08.2008, therefore, appeal (CRA-S-931-SB-2004)
stands abated.
Learned senior counsel for appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi submits
that in CWP-10475-1996, vide order dated 07.09.1996, it was directed that CBI
should examine the cases 1996 onwards, however, as per statement of PW10
B.D. Dhuppar, the directions were with regard to disbursement of subsidy
19 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -20-
released during 1995-96 and there was no directions to investigate the cases
prior to this period, though there was a general direction to investigate the cases
against all the accused persons, however, only the case was registered with
regard to four industries run by accused Raj Kumar and it has come in the
evidence that during this period, subsidy amount upto Rs.50.00 lacs was
disbursed to various big industries. Learned senior counsel has referred to
policy Ex.PW5/1 under which the disbursement of subsidy was made. It is
argued that it is provided under this policy scheme that the unit is to run
continuously for a period of 05 years and in case the owner closes the unit, he
will return the subsidy along with interest to the Govt. Learned senior counsel
has referred to the statement of various prosecution witnesses, who had
admitted this condition being part of the policy instructions, however, despite
the fact that a bond was furnished by accused Raj Kumar being owner of the
units that he will return the subsidy amount, the prosecution has been initiated
against the appellants, who are employees of the Industries Department, in an
illegal manner.
Learned senior counsel has further referred to statement of PW6 Jai
Parkash Gupta, who stated that subsidy in question regarding M/s National
Steel Industry was given in the year 1991 and appellant Inderjit Singh Tandi,
who was Industrial Promotion Officer, was to check the working of unit at
initial stage. Learned senior counsel has referred to cross-examination of PW5
Amarjit Singh Sidhu, who clearly admitted that no document relating to M/s
National Steel Industry was found to be bogus and in his verification report, his
20 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -21-
Project Manager told him about the site, where the same was in existence. It is
further submitted that PW5 has clearly admitted about all the relevant
documents, attached with the proforma submitted by co-accused Raj Kumar for
claiming the subsidy, were never found to be bogus and rather from the
statement of DW1 Baldev Raj, bank official and DW3 Madan Lal, an official of
New India Insurance Company, it is clear that loan was disbursed and paid to
M/s Atul Traders, supplier of the machinery. Both these witnesses have also
stated that before sanctioning of the loan, physical verification of the machinery
was done and similarly, before releasing the insurance policy, even the
photographs of the machinery were taken, therefore, there is no evidence to
show that appellant Inderjit Singh Tandi being the Industrial Promotion Officer
verified any bogus document or prepared any illegal report.
Learned senior counsel has relied upon survey report Ex.DW2/13
as well as registration/licence of the unit, report of Chartered Accountant,
project report, electricity bills, which were never taken in possession by PW26
Bhuri Singh, Investigating Officer, which clearly suggest that M/s National
Steel Industry was in existence on 06.04.1990, therefore, the trial Court,
without referring to all these documents, wrongly convicted the appellants.
It is further argued that even the charge under Section 13(1)(d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act is not sustainable and the subsidy
amount was released on 30.08.1991 and appellant Inderjit Singh Tandi was
transferred on 27.08.1991, as per statement of PW10 B.D. Dhuppar, Additional
Director, Industries Department, therefore, once prior to disbursement of the
21 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -22-
subsidy, the appellant was transferred from the place, he cannot be held
responsible for non-report of closure of the unit subsequent to release of
subsidy.
It is also argued that even it has come in the statement of PW6 Jai
Parkash Gupta that Baljinder Walia, Project Manager of his office, who was
accompanying him, when he had gone to visit and locate four units and taken
him to four different places, where all the four units were there. It is next
submitted that PW6 stated that he remained posted in the area from December,
1996 to April, 1999 and he was not in the office, when the subsidy amount was
released in 1991, therefore, after five years of releasing of the subsidy amount,
CBI had wrongly relied upon verification report submitted by this witness, who
at the first instance, stated that he could not locate the units, but later on, with
the help of Baljinder Walia, Project Manager, he had visited all four units i.e.
M/s National Industry, located at Bhagtan Wala Gate opposite Dana Mandi,
Amritsar, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, located at Peer Shah Road, outside
Gate Hakima, Amritsar, M/s Punjab Engineering Works, located at Gill Wali
Gate, Amritsar and M/s Moon Industries, located at Chhati Wind Gate,
Amritsar and were identified by Baljinder Walia, Project Manager of his office.
It is argued that once all the four units were duly located, there was no occasion
for the trial Court to convict the appellants.
It is next argued that as per the policy, all the four units were
continued for five years w.e.f. 30.08.1991 and the verification done by PW6 in
1996 i.e. after five years, has no merits to convict the appellants. It is further
22 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -23-
argued that though it has come in the statement of PW6 Jai Parkash Gupta that
while conducting the physical verification regarding location of the four units,
he was assisted by Baljinder Walia, Project Manager of his office, who helped
him in verifying the same at four different places, however, CBI intentionally
did not make Baljinder Walia a witness, though he was most material witness
being Project Manager of the area to tell about the details of all the four units,
therefore, the CBI had not brought the complete evidence on record.
Learned senior counsel has next referred to statement of PW5
Amarjit Sindh Sidhu, Additional Controller of Store, Department of Industries,
who remained posted from 1996 to 1999 and deposed that field staff of the
Department is not required to verify the genuineness of the bills from the
supplier or the sources of purchase of machinery by the unit, as per policy
instructions. It is argued that this witness stated that the requirement was to take
affidavit and undertaking from the industrial unit that it is functional and will
remain functional for five years and field staff only verify the existence of the
machinery, which was done in 1991, as deposed by the Manager of the Bank,
who extended the loan and Manager of the Insurance Company, who provided
the insurance cover to the machinery. It is submitted that thus, no liability can
be fastened on the appellant in this regard.
Learned senior counsel has further referred to statement of PW5,
who proved on record the document Ex.PW5/34 to submit that in the
departmental inquiry, wherein a charge was framed against the appellant on
similar grounds regarding releasing of the subsidy in an illegal manner, the
23 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -24-
department exonerated him finding no fault in releasing the subsidy, therefore,
conviction of the appellant is not sustainable, though CBI has conducted an
independent investigation, but even from the statement of this witness, in the
light of policy instructions Ex.PW5/1, nothing is proved against the appellant. It
is thus submitted that even the sanction granted by the Department to prosecute
appellant Inderjit Singh Tandi is defective, as it has come in the statement of
PW11 K.P. Singh that he did not know whether before granting sanction, if the
inquiry conducted by exonerating the appellant was taken into consideration by
the sanctioning authority. It is next submitted that in the absence of all the
material documents placed before the sanctioning authority, it cannot be said
that there was application of mind by the concerned authority before grant of
sanction for prosecution of the appellants. It is also submitted that as per
statement of PW14 Sarabjit Singh, an official of office of Deputy
Commissioner, Amritsar, who stated that District Level Committee, which
sanctioned the subsidy, comprises of the officials of Excise and Taxation
Department, Bank, AEE, PSEB, EE from the Pollution Control Board and only
after verification by all the departments, subsidy is granted, therefore, the
appellant being employees of the Industries Department alone cannot be held
liable.
Learned senior counsel on behalf of appellant Pritam Singh has
argued that he has no role in verification of the unit at the spot and as per
policy, his duty was to examine the report submitted by the field staff of the
District Level Committee as per letters Ex.DW1 and Ex.DW4/2 proved by
24 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -25-
DW4 Jaspal Singh Grewal, Deputy Director, Industries, Punjab. It is further
argued that as per standard procedure, only after District Manager forwards the
case to the District Level Committee, it is duty of the District Level Committee
headed by the Deputy Commissioner to either approve or disapprove the
sanction of the subsidy. It is next argued that only evidence against appellant
Pritam Singh is that he prepared the agenda, which was placed before the
District Level Committee and preparation of agenda items is not a
recommendation by the General Manager, as final authority for grant of subsidy
was the District Level Committee. It is also submitted that even the spot
verification was not done by the appellant being General Manager and it was
done by the field staff, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for
anything done wrongly by the industrial units or field staff. It is further
submitted that in the departmental inquiry conducted by Joint Director,
Industries, appellant Pritam Singh was also found innocent on the basis of
documentary evidence, therefore, his conviction is liable to be set aside and
even in his case, the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind by not
considering the inquiry report.
Learned counsel for appellant Raj Kumar has argued that the
appellant was granted subsidy amount of Rs.1,08,900/- for M/s Moon
Industries, Rs.1,22,000/- for M/s Mahajan Steel Industry, Rs.45,280/- for M/s
Punjab Engineering Corporation and amount of Rs.1,25,800/- for M/s National
Steel Industries in the year 1991-92, however, the allegations are that on
verification done in 1998, it was found that all the units are not in existence and
25 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -26-
even the firms, from where the machine was purchased was not in existence. It
is further submitted that prosecution could not lead any evidence, as the original
documents were never produced and only photocopies were produced and no
permission was taken from the Court for leading secondary evidence. It is also
submitted that the units had raised loan from the bank for the purchase of
machinery and later on, the same was also insured. Learned counsel has
referred to the statement of PW26 Inspector Bhuri Singh, who stated that as per
policy framed for the growth of industries in Punjab, the person receiving the
subsidy had to given an undertaking that he will run the industry continuously
for a period of 4/5 years and in default, he will reimburse the subsidy along
with interest. This witness further stated that subsidy was paid at the time of
purchase of land or the machinery, as the case may be or at the time of
commencement of production. This witness admitted that in the present case,
the units had obtained loan from the bank. He further stated that he did not try
to collect the record of electricity bills from PSEB and since the units did not
exist, no such effort was made. This witness also stated that he had not visited
the State Bank of India, from where the loan was taken for making payment to
M/s Atul Traders and similarly, with regard to M/s National Steel Industry, he
also not seen record of State Bank of India, Amritsar. This witness clearly
admitted that he had not taken in custody the original bills. In cross-
examination, when this witness was confronted with certain documents
regarding advancement of loan, electricity connection and payment to supplier
of the machinery, he pleaded ignorance about all these facts. Various
26 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -27-
documents Ex.PW17/D-A to Ex.PW17/D-D and Ex.PW17/D01 to Ex.PW17/D-
5 were put to this witness to suggest that these are the project reports, affidavit
of Chartered Accountant, documents relating to obtaining the loan, purchase of
machinery and insurance, he pleaded ignorance about all these documents.
Learned counsel has further argued that from the perusal of cross-
examination of PW26, it is apparent that he had not conducted proper
investigation and only on the basis of inference, he drew the conclusion that the
industries were not in existence. It is also submitted that it is not case of the
prosecution that loan amount taken by four industries was ever misappropriated,
as it was returned in time, therefore, the trial Court wrongly convicted the
appellant. It is next submitted that PW26 Investigating Officer further admitted
in cross-examination that a total of 236 units received subsidy in the year 1995-
96 to the tune of Rs.50.00 lacs, however, except the present case, no other case
was registered. It is thus submitted that it is well proved from the documentary
evidence that four units were set up prior to 1992, as subsidy was released in
1991, whereas the present case was registered in the year 1998 i.e. much after a
lapse of five years, provided in the policy of the State Govt. that the unit
obtaining the subsidy should work continuously till 05 years or in the
alternative, refund the subsidy amount with interest. It is next argued that the
undertakings given by four units are well proved on record and registration of
FIR beyond a period of five years is not at all sustainable.
Learned senior counsel for appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and
Pritam Singh and learned counsel for appellant Raj Kumar have lastly argued
27 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -28-
that the appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial since 1998 and they
are senior citizen and appellant Gurnam Singh has already died.
Learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon Sait Tarajee
Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others, 1971 AIR (SC)
1865, Karnail Singh Vs. M/s Kalra Brothers, Sira, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil)
380, LIC of India and another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, 2010 (4) SCC 491
and Muddoru Rajappa Tipanna Vs. State of Karnataka, 2015 (4) RCR
(Crl.) 485, to submit that in order to prove the document, a party has to lead
evidence either by way of primary evidence or by way of secondary evidence
and mere exhibition of photocopy of the document in the absence of any
permission to lead secondary evidence, is not due proof of original document
and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the documents, which are collected
by the Investigating Officer/PW26 Inspector Bhuri Singh, to uphold conviction
of the appellants.
In reply, learned Sr. Panel Counsel for CBI has argued that as per
investigation conducted by PW26 Inspector Bhuri Singh, the units were not
found to be existing, therefore, in terms of the directions given by this Court,
the FIR was registered against the accused persons, who were either the
beneficiaries or employees of the Industries Department, as they have verified
fake bills of four firms with extraneous consideration, therefore, the trial Court
has right convicted the appellants.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in these
appeals, for the following reasons: -
28 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -29-
(a) The very genesis of registration of FIR is based on an order passed
by this Court in CWP-10475-1996, which reads as under: -
"On May 13, 1996, a news item had appeared in the Daily
Tribune under the caption "Ghost units eating up subsidy".
Mr. K.B. Gupta, Engineer-in-Chief/Punjab State Electricity
Board (Retd.) of Ludhiana forwarded to the Chief Justice of
this Court a cutting of the news item. It was placed by the
District Judge (Vigilance) before one of us (Mr. Justice
T.H.B. Chalapathi). It was ordered that the letter be treated
as a writ petition. Accordingly, vide order dated July 23,
1996 we had directed issue of notice of motion to the
Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Punjab,
Chandigarh. It was also directed that a complete list of units
to which subsidy had been given during the last one year as
also the amount paid to each of the units shall be filed.
Notice was also directed to be given to Mr. Varinder Walia,
author of the news item which had appeared in the Dally
'Tribune' on May 13. 1996.
In pursuance to the notice by the Court, the
Secretary Department of Industries did not file any reply.
However, Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sidhu, Deputy Director,
Department of Industries, Punjab filed a short reply with
which he has appended list of 236 units to which subsidy
29 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -30-
has been sanctioned during the year 1995-96. A perusal of
the list indicates that substantial amounts of money had
been paid to various units. Some of the units have been paid
as much as 30 lakh each. In case of M/s Rana Sugar
Limited, the subsidy is to the tune of Rse 50 lakhs.
Mr. Varinder Walia, Staff Correspondent of The
Tribune (who is also present in the Court), has filed an
affidavit. He has inter-alia stated that the report published
by him in 'The Tribune' of May 13, 1996 is based on "a
random survey personally done by him in the area of
Bathinda after the publicatlon of news item dated 13th of
March, 1996 in the Punjabi Tribune, as a follow-up story".
He has referred to the report published by Shri Balbir Singh
Dhillon in the Punjabi Tribune of March 13, 1996 in which
the glaring irregularities indicating siphoning of subsidies
with the connivance of the officials of the Industries
Department, Punjab had been highlighted. He has further
pointed out that various plots were carved out in the
Industrial Area known as the 'Industrial Focal-Point' on
Bathinda-Dhabwali Road. In gross violation of the rules
most of the plots which were allotted at subsidised rates for
growth of industry have been converted into 'palatial
residential houses', bank buildings, godowns, offices of
30 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -31-
transport carriers, dairies and for keeping live-stocks. He
has produced alongwith his affidavit 12 photographs. At
certain places the plots are shown to be vacant.
We have heard Ms. Jai Shree Thakur and Mr.
Rakesh Garg. Prima-facie we are satisfied that there is a
potential scam. The matter deserves to be probed and
investigated. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that it
is necessary that the investigation is conducted by the CBI.
Accordingly, we direct the Deputy Inspector General (CBI),
CBI Building, Sector 30, Chandigarh to have the matter
investigated thoroughly. He shall submit a report regarding
the investigation and the facts found within two months from
today. We direct the matter be placed before us on
November 22, 1996 as we have already heard the learned
counsel at length."
A perusal of the order would show that it was noticed that
there are units, which had received subsidy between Rs.30.00 lacs
to Rs.50.00 lacs, as one case of M/s Rana Sugar Ltd. was
considered, which was given subsidy of Rs.50.00 lacs, however, it
is case of CBI that except four small units of accused Raj Kumar,
no investigation was done with regard M/s Rana Sugar Ltd. or
other industries, which were given subsidy upto Rs.50.00 lacs. The
order further speaks regarding development of an Industrial Focal
31 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -32-
Point on Bathinda-Dabwali Road in gross violation of the rules,
whereas plots were allotted at subsidized rates and the same were
converted into palatial residential houses or other commercial
buildings, however, there is no investigation in this regard, which
had weighed the mind of Bench, which had passed the aforesaid
order.
(b) A perusal of the investigation conducted in this case and statement
of PW26 Inspector Bhuri Singh, Investigating Officer, shows that
he conducted the investigation in a very casual manner and while
drawing inferences, held that the aforesaid four units i.e. M/s
Moon Industries, M/s Mahajan Steel Industries, M/s Punjab
Engineering Corporation and M/s National Steel Industries were
not in existence. In cross-examination, this witness was confronted
with number of documents like application for raising loan from
State Bank of India, purchase of machinery from M/s Atul Traders,
to whom the cheque was given by the State Bank of India,
insurance cover provided by New India Insurance Company, qua
which this witness pleaded ignorance and stated that he did not
know anything about it.
(c) The appellants led defence evidence to show that before
sanctioning of the loan or issuing the insurance cover, both SBI
and Insurance Company through their surveyors got the spot
inspection of the machinery conducted and it is only thereafter, the
32 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -33-
loan was disbursed or insurance policy was issued. The trial Court
had not appreciated the statement of DW1 Baldev Raj, an official
of SBI, who proved all these facts. Statement of PW26 is otherwise
lacks credibility, as he stated that he had only obtained photocopies
of all the documents and never tried to take originals of various
documents relied upon by the prosecution. During the trial, no
application was moved for permission to lead secondary evidence
by summoning original record before the trial Court, therefore, in
view of well settled principle of law, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand's case (supra),
Karnail Singh's case (supra), Ram Pal Singh Bisen's case
(supra) and Muddoru Rajappa Tipanna's case (supra), no
reliance can be placed on photocopies, which are though exhibited,
but not proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian
Evidence Act.
(d) It is not explained by CBI as to why the directions of this Court
were not complied with in letter and spirit, as no FIR was
registered with regard to big industrial units, as mentioned in the
order itself, who were granted subsidy to the tune of Rs.30.00 lacs
to Rs.50.00 lacs and out of 236 units, the FIR was registered only
qua four units of appellant Raj Kumar. There is no explanation
with regard to directions given by this Court regarding setting up
of an Industrial Focal Point on Bathinda-Dabwali Road, which was
33 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -34-
later on converted into residential houses or commercial buildings.
(e) From perusal of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it appears that
just to cover up the directions given by this Court, one FIR was
registered qua four units of appellant Raj Kumar, though the
directions were with regard to conducting the investigation with
regard to 236 units, which were granted subsidy in the year 1995-
96.
(f) Even otherwise, the trial Court had not considered that only
condition for grant of subsidy was that unit should remain
operational for a period of five years from the date of
commencement of the production and owners of the units were
directed to file an undertaking in the shape of affidavit that if they
failed to do so, they will return the subsidy amount along with
interest. In this case, subsidy was released in 1991 and FIR was
registered after 05 years, in 1998.
(g) It is not case of the Industries Department that at any point of time,
they asked appellant Raj Kumar to return the subsidy, as his unit
was found to be in existence. Rather a period of five years lapsed
in 1996 and the FIR was registered in the year 1998, therefore, no
penal action could be taken beyond the period of five years, as per
own policy of the State Govt.
(h) It has also come in the prosecution evidence that the District Level
Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Deputy
34 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -35-
Commissioner, which scrutinize the application, before sanctioning
the subsidy and it included the officials from Excise and Taxation
Department, Industries Department and other departments and
after verification by the Committee, the subsidy was released.
(i) So far as the case of appellant Inderjit Singh Tandi is concerned,
he was working as Industrial Promotion Officer and was to make a
report at initial stage that the unit was in existence. Vide order
Ex.PW10/D1, he was transferred on 27.08.1991, whereas subsidy
was released subsequently on 31.08.1991.
(j) PW5 Amarjit Singh Sidhu contradicted the investigation conducted
by PW26 Inspector Bhuri Singh and has categorically stated that
all the relevant documents attached by four units for the purpose of
claiming subsidy were never found to be bogus and especially with
regard to Inderjit Singh Tandi, this witness stated that none of the
document attested by Inderjit Singh Tandi was found to be
ingenuine or fake and report submitted by him was also based on
the fact that DW1 Baldev Raj, an official of SBI, stated that M/s
National Steel Industry was given advance money for purchase of
machinery to the tune of Rs.3.70 lacs and cash credit limit of
Rs.3.50 lacs. Similarly, as per DW3, the machine, which was
installed in the unit, after spot inspection, was insured by New
India Insurance Company, therefore, appellant Interjit Singh Tandi
prepared the verification report on the basis of all the documents
35 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -36-
and it cannot be said that unit was not in existence in 1991, when
the report was prepared, whereas PW26 visited the units in the year
1998.
(k) So far as appellant Pritam Singh is concerned, he has no role in
verification of the units at the spot. As per his duty roster, he was
to examine the report submitted by the field staff and then refer the
case to the District Level Committee, as proved from the statement
of DW4 Jaspal Singh Grewal and he only prepared the agenda,
which was placed before the District Level Committee and the
agenda was not in the shape of any recommendation, as final
action was to be taken by the District Level Committee.
(l) Both appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi and Pritam Singh faced
departmental inquiry for the allegations that such bogus documents
were verified by them and in the same, they were found to be
innocent, as a finding was recorded that no document was found to
be bogus. The trial Court has not dealt with this aspect of the case
that the documents were not found to be bogus in the departmental
inquiry, how PW26 found that the documents were in fact fake.
(m) A perusal of a letter sent by Director of Industries and Commerce
to SP, CBI clearly shows that subsidy was granted under 1987-89
policy, after due verification by field staff and this letter initially
suggests that any irregularity or illegality was committed by the
appellants.
36 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -37-
(n) Though it is well settled principle of law that mere exoneration in
departmental inquiry do not exonerate a person in criminal
prosecution but the fact as admitted by PW26 is that no document
verified by the appellants was found to be fake or ingenuine in
departmental inquiry, have a direct bearing on the present case,
especially in view of the fact that PW26 admitted that he never
took any original document in possession during the investigation
and all the documents are photocopies attached with the
chargesheet.
(o) Though during examination-in-chief, when photocopies of
documents were exhibited, an objection was raised regarding
admissibility, which was kept open, to be decided at final
adjudication, but the trial Court did not pass any specific order in
this regard and therefore, the photocopies of documents, though
exhibited, are not proved as per law.
(p) After re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that
the same do not prove the case of the prosecution beyond doubt,
especially in view of statement of PW26 that the investigation
conducted by him is based on inference that four units were not
existence in the year 1998, whereas as per policy of the State
Govt., units were to remain operative till 1996 i.e. for a period of
five years from the date of coming into operation from the date of
release of subsidy, which was released in the year 1991, therefore,
37 of 38
CRA-S-712-SB-2004 (O&M) -38-
this Court cannot upheld the judgment of conviction and the order
of sentence dated 15.03.2004 passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by appellants Inderjit Singh Tandi,
Pritam Singh and Raj Kumar are allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction as well as the order of sentence dated 15.03.2004 passed by the
Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala are set aside and they are acquitted of the
charge framed against them, as appellant Gurnam Singh has already died and
appeal filed by him stands abated.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
30.06.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
38 of 38
