Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1) N.M. Shetty S/O Sh. N.C.Shetty, on 22 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 154/07 RC : 39(A)/1990
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s : 120B IPC, r/w 420, 477A of
of IPC; U/s 5 (2) read with
section 5 (1) (d) of the P.C.
Act, 1947 & U/s 420 IPC.
CBI Vs. 1) N.M. Shetty S/o Sh. N.C.Shetty,
R/o 11, Sadhna Enclave,
Delhi110017.
2) M/s. Reliance Engineering Works,
through its partner Vijay Kumar Malik,
having its registered office at
17, Neelkanth Commercial Complex,
Chembure Govandi Road, Mumbai.
3) Narender Kumar Malik, S/o Sh. Sant Lal,
R/o 7, Ganga Estate, Chembure, Mumbai.
4) Vijay Kumar Malik S/o Sh. Sant Lal,
R/o 7, Ganga Estate, Chembure, Mumbai.
Date of Institution : 05.04.1994
Judgment Reserved on : 13.05.2015
Judgment Delivered on : 22.05.2015
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 1 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, the accused N.M. Shetty, R.K. Mathur, N.K. Malik, V. K. Malik and M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay were sent up for trial, for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w Section 420, 477A IPC & 5(2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1947, and for substantive offences punishable under Section 420, 477A IPC & Section 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1947. During the trial the accused R.K. Mathur had expired and therefore, the proceedings against him were dropped, since abated, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 25.04.1996.
2. It has been stated in the chargesheet that the present case was registered on 04.09.90, on the basis of a source information, wherein, it was alleged that the aforesaid accused persons, along with other seven accused persons, (who have been mentioned in column No. 2 of the charge sheet and not sent up for trial), entered into a criminal conspiracy, while working in different CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 2 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi official capacities at Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation (HVOC) and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, by using corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing their official positions, as such public servants, placed orders for supply, erection and commissioning of plant and machinery and for supply of additional equipments for expansion program of Delhi Vanaspati Unit of HVOC, on the accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, for a sum of Rs.243.75 Lacs, without inviting any tender, in utter violation of the procedure to be followed in such matters.
3. It is further alleged in the chargesheet that the firm made certain supplies against the said orders, which was subsequently canceled by HVOC. But, in the meanwhile, the accused officers had paid huge amounts as unsecured loans and substantial part of which could not be recovered and an amount of Rs.38,86,989/ was outstanding against the firm as on 31.03.1985 and the same continued to be so even thereafter.
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 3 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
4. It is further alleged in the chargesheet that the order bearing No. SCO/10676, dated 22/24.03.1983 for about Rs.206.54 Lacs, was placed on accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works Bombay, by HVOC, under the signatures of Sh. R Vijayendran, the then Sr. Commercial Officer, on the basis of recommendations made and decision taken in the meeting of Central Purchase Committee of GFM/HVOC, in which N.M. Shetty, R.K. Mathur, S.C. Kapoor, K.A. Aggarwal, R. Vijayendran and A.K. Mahatma, were participants. But, the minutes of the said meeting were undated and it was nowhere indicated as to when the said meeting was held. The terms & conditions of the orders were incorporated in the minutes and the terms of payment incorporated in the said order, provided that 20% of the total contracted value would be paid as advance against the bank guarantee for that value and valid till eight months from the date of orders and 70% value would be paid on prorata basis against the despatch of the equipments, 5% of the value would be paid within 7/10 days after complete supply/erection and conditioning CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 4 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi of all equipments as per the scope of this contract, to the satisfaction of the senior production manager of the unit and final 5% of the value would be paid within 30 days from the date of commissioning of plant in full and on furnishing the bank guarantee for this value and valid till the performance guarantee period.
5. It is further stated in the chargesheet that another order for Rs.
37.75 Lacs for supply of additional equipments for expansion programe at Delhi Vanaspati Unit of HVOC (Ganesh Flour Mills), was placed on the firm on 01.03.1984 under signatures of Sh. R.K. Mathur, the then Sr. General Manager, Sh. V.K. Trehan, the then General Manager, Sh. K. Kumar, the then Manager (Finance) and Sh. A.K. Dass, the then Commercial Officer. The specifications of the equipments and the price were mentioned in the order. The terms of payment provided for payment of 30% of the total contract value against delivery at site, 60% of the value on prorata basis against dispatch of equipments, 5% of the value CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 5 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi within 15 days after the complete supply of all equipments, as per the scope of the contract to the satisfaction of the HVOC and the final 5% value within 45 days from the date of commissioning of the plant in full and also on furnishing a bank guarantee for the value and valid till the performance guarantee period. The said order was seen to be based on the letter No. REW/GFM/8424, dated Nil, and the further discussions, the HVOC had with the said firm. This basis for awarding the contract was evidently fake and misleading. The decision to award this supply order to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, was shown to have been taken in the meeting of Central Purchase Committee held on 25.02.1984. But, from the minutes of the said meeting, it was seen that the date of meeting was mentioned only in hand and it contained over writings also. The decision of the committee to award the supply order to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works was approved by accused N.M. Shetty, the then CMD, HVOC.
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 6 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
6. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the tenders were not invited for awarding the aforesaid contracts for a total value of Rs. 243.75 Lacs and it was mentioned in the undated minutes of Central Purchase Committee that since the nature of fabrication, supply and erection was identical to the one covered under their contract with M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay for Kanpur Unit, finalized very recently, during the month of February 1983 and since they had done complete exercise of issuing detailed inquiry, calling for quotations, valuations of offers (both technically and commercially), before the finalization of the said contracts for Kanpur Unit, the committee felt it to be unnecessary to repeat the above exercise towards the requirement of Delhi Unit, in order to cut down the internal lead time for deciding and awarding the contract and hence, the contract was awarded on the same rates and terms & conditions as decided in the case of Kanpur Unit.
7. It is further stated in the charge sheet that in terms of value, the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 7 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi contract No. SCO/10676 alone for Delhi Vanaspati Unit was almost twice that of the contract No. SCO/10652, dated 19/24.03.1983 for Kanpur Unit, which was for Rs.105 Lacs only . Besides, both the contracts i.e. for Kanpur Unit as well as for Delhi Vanaspati Unit, were placed on the said firm on the same date, i.e., on 24.03.83. In view of this fact, it does not stand to reason as to why the accused officers of GFM/HVOC should have called and processed tenders for Kanpur unit only and not for Delhi Vanaspati Unit, the value of which was much bigger in size. It is further stated that the accused officers had manipulated the records including the tenders for awarding the work for Kanpur Unit also. This is evident from the fact that in case of Kanpur unit, the letter of inquiry was shown to have been sent to only four firms, namely, M/s. Servotech Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Bombay; M/s. Desmet India Pvt. Ltd., Bombay; M/s. Pennwalt India Ltd., Bombay and M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, whereas in the minutes of the Central Purchase Committee, shown to have been held on 02.02.1983, the names of six firms were mentioned, CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 8 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi i.e., in addition to the above said four firms, the tenders were shown to have been received from M/s. Shilpa Technical Consultants, Bombay and M/s. Chemtech, Bombay, whose names did not figure in the tender inquiry.
8. It is further stated in the charge sheet that even in the case of abovesaid four firms, figuring in the letter of inquiry, the names of first three firms were typed on the top of inquiry letter and these letters were shown to have been dispatched to them on 27/28.12.1982, whereas, the name of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, was added in hand, at the end of the list at serial No. 4 and letter was dispatched to this firm on th 30 December, 1982. The dispatch number given to the letter sent to M/s. Reliance Engineering Works also did not appear to be in consonance with the despatch numbers given in case of other three firms. It is also worth mentioning that all the six firms happened to be located at Bombay.
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 9 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
9. It is further stated in the chargesheet that the tenders were shown to have been received only from three firms, namely, M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, whose name was added at S. No. 4 in hand, in the said letter of tender inquiry and from M/s. Shilpa Technical Consultants, Bombay and M/s. Chemtech, Bombay, to whom inquiries were not at all sent, as evident from the copy of the said tender inquiry letter.
10. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the claims of the accused, having undertaken the exercise of calling for tenders and processing the same with a view to securing competitive rates and terms and conditions are rendered false and meaningless in view of the fact that an amount of Rs. 20 Lacs had already been paid to M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay through four cheques much before 24.03.1993, when the works for Kanpur unit and Delhi Vanaspati Unit were given to the said firm. It is further stated that Rs.5 Lacs each were paid to M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, as advance by Bombay Office of CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 10 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi GFM/HVOC on 02.02.1983 and 03.02.1983 and Rs.10 Lacs through two cheques of Rs. 5 Lacs each on 19.02.1983. The above facts of payments of Rs.20 Lacs having already been made before 24.03.1983 would also clearly show that it had already been decided at the highest levels of the GFM to award the work to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay and the records were manipulated to show that due procedure of calling for tenders and processing the same before award of the work had been followed.
11. It is further stated in the charge sheet that as on 31.03.1985, a total amount of Rs.1,87,33,640.68p stood paid to the accused firm, out of which Rs.1,84,35,000/ was paid as advance. Against the above mentioned Rs.1,87,33,640.68p, the bills of the accused firm passed and adjusted, were only to the extent of Rs. 1,42,70,000/, thus, leaving a balance of Rs.44,63,640.68p outstanding against the accused firm as on 31.3.1985. This includes Rs. 10 Lacs paid to the accused firm vide bank payment CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 11 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi voucher No. 57, dated 16.11.84 towards advance for construction of two storage tanks in the premises of Hindustan Breakfast Foods Manufacturing Factory of HVOC at Delhi. This amount of Rs.10 Lacs was paid on written orders issued by accused R.K. Mathur (since deceased), though, no such contract had been given to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, for construction of storage tanks.
12. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the balance amount of advance were also paid to the accused firm on the orders issued by deceased R.K. Mathur, purportedly on the instructions of accused N.M. Shetty, the then Chief Executive, GFM/CMD, HVOC. It was also revealed that in none of the cases of payment of advances etc, bank guarantees were obtained from the accused firm, as required in the terms of the agreement and the request of the accused firm for payment of advances was also not processed in the usual and proper manner. At any given point of time, the advances paid to the accused firm far exceeded the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 12 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi supply made or work executed by them. While passing the orders for payment, accused R.K. Mathur did not indicate the contract number against which the payment was to be made or mentioned that the payment was to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract and after ascertaining whether any advance was due to the firm. In language and tenor, the orders were almost mandatory in nature to affect the payment immediately and in most of the cases, payments were released on the same date. As such, while advancing the said payments, the concerned officers acted in connivance with the party deliberately and knowingly and failed to safeguard the financial interest of GFM/ HVOC and acted in complete contravention of norms and procedure followed, in regard to payment of advances.
13. It is further stated in the chargesheet that no estimate or proposal for the subject capital project was prepared or existed. No administrative approval for this project was taken from the competent authority. No financial sanction had been taken from CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 13 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi the central government and there was no sanction even from the board of directors of HVOC. The contracts were finalized by diverting the funds from working capital of the company. The contracts were awarded in violation of the codal and procedural formalities such as making market survey and preparing estimate or proposal, calling of tenders by giving adequate publicity in view of the volume of the order and ensuring adequate competition. Advances were stipulated against bank guarantee, but, were paid without bank guarantee and far in excess of the stipulated terms or supplies made and work executed. The orders were placed on the accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works and huge amounts as advances, as mentioned above, were given to them by manipulating the records.
14. It is further stated in the charge sheet that no such meetings of the central purchase committee were held and minutes were fabricated only to provide cover to the decisions taken by accused N. M. Shetty and R.K. Mathur to award the work to accused M/s. CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 14 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay and to make huge amount of advances to the said firm. Sh. S.C.Kapoor, Sh. K.K. Kumar, Sh. A.L. Mahatma, Sh. H.K. Tiwari, Sh. A.K. Dass who had signed the minutes have confirmed the above facts, during investigations and stated that no such meetings used to be held and the minutes were prepared much after award of the contracts and got signed by them, in circulation. As regards the payment of advances, Sh. C.R. Ravindra, who had passed the large number of vouchers for such payments has stated that orders were passed by accused R.K. Mathur on the request letter of the party and such payment orders were almost mandatory in nature. He has further stated that whenever, he raised any objection before Sh. R.K. Mathur, the letter told him that these were orders of N.M. Shetty, Chairman & Chief Executive and that R.K. Mathur had already passed orders in writing on the request letter of the firm and as such, the accounts division need not worry about the procedure or bank guarantee and they should release the payment to the party straight away. The records, including books CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 15 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi of accounts were manipulated in regard to the said payment would also be evident from the fact that the bills of the accused firm were certified in June, 1986 by Sh. Ramesh Chander Puniani, a chartered engineer, engaged by HVOC, whereas, the adjustments against the bills are shown to have been made on 31.03.1985. Sh. Puniani was only a Civil Engineer, whereas, the items required to be inspected and verified were plant & machinery, which normally would not fall within the jurisdiction of his discipline.
15. It is further stated in the charge sheet that accused N.M. Shetty had taken loans of a total amount of Rs.29 Lacs approximately, during the period 1982 to 1984 from M/s. Reliance Engineering Works and its sister concern M/s. Murphy Engineers, in his name and in the names of his wife and daughter, which remained unpaid for a number of years and even now approximately Rs. 6 Lacs, in addition to the interest, on the whole amount remains to be paid by him to the firm. Sh. Vijay Kumar Malik was having CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 16 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi power of attorney to deal with HVOC on behalf of the said firm and they used to deal with the concerned officers of HVOC. Therefore, all the aforesaid accused have committed various offences punishable u/s 120B, r/w Sec. 420, 477A IPC & 5(2), r/w Sec. 5 (i)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1947 and Sec. 420/477A IPC & Sec. 5 (2) , r/w Sec. 5 (i)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1947.
16. On 04.07.2008, order on charge was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, whereby the charges for the offences punishable u/s. 120B, r/w sec. 420/477A IPC & u/s 5 (2) r/w Sec. 5 (i) (d) of the P.C.Act, 1947 and for the offences punishable u/s. 420/477A IPC & sec. 5(2) r/w Sec. 5 (i) (d) of the P.C.Act, 1947, were directed to be framed. In pursuance to the said order, the charges were framed against all the accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 16.08.2011, to which, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
17. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 17 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi following witnesses:
(i) PW1 Sh. R.K. Verma, who joined HVOC on deputation as financial controller in the month of October 1985. This witness has deposed about the procedure to be adopted for award of capital projects. He has categorically stated that the projects more than worth Rs. 1 Crore were to be finalized by the Board of Directors and the contracts exceeding Rs. 1 Crore were to be approved by the officials of the Ministry concerned. He has further deposed that the accounts of the company were not audited since 198283, till 198788 and the pending accounts were updated upto the date of nationalization and assets were taken over by HVOC on book value. He has further deposed that in the year 1985, the board had taken a decision that running projects were to be cancelled due to paucity of time. However, a decision was taken by the board, later on, to continue with projects which were partially complete and were near completion.
(ii) PW2 Sh. Kishore Kumar, accounts officer of Ganesh Flour Mills, who took VRS from HVOC in 1993. He has identified his CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 18 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi signatures on the minutes of the central purchase committee meeting held on 3.12.84 (D75 ) Ex.PW3/A. But, has deposed that he was not the member of the purchase committee and he signed the minutes later on, on the instruction of R.K. Mathur, the then Sr. General Manager. He has also identified his signatures on the minutes of the central purchase committee meeting dated 07.12.84, regarding erection and commission of MS Storage tanks at modern oil complex, Najafgarh Road, Delhi and has further deposed that the approval of awarding the contract to M/s.
Swastika Engineering was accorded by Sh. N.M. Shetty, who signed the minutes Ex.PW2/B as chairman and Managing Director. But, he has categorically stated that the meeting was not attended by him and he signed the minutes Ex.PW2/B, later on, at the instance of R.K. Mathur, the then Sr. General Manager. He has also deposed that vide instruction Ex.PW3/B, issued by R.K. Mathur, the then Sr. General Manager, to the Head Office Account, a sum of Rs.10 Lacs was paid to M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay for construction of storage tank for CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 19 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi modern oil complex at the premises of Hindustan Breakfast Foods Manufacturing factory and the same was paid vide cheque No. 7466593 (D101) dated 16.11.84 Ex.PW3/C.
(iii) PW3 Sh. A.K. Dass, who joined Ganesh Flour Mills on 21.06.83 as Management Trainee. He has also deposed about the minutes of central purchase committee meeting dated 03.12.84, vide which the letter of indent dated 04.12.84 for fabrication of 2 MS Storage tanks of 2000 MT capacity each at Modern Oil Complex at Najagarh Road was issued to M/s. Swastika Engineering, under signatures of A.K. Dass and R.K. Mathur. This witness has also identified his signatures and signatures of R.K. Mathur and N.M. Shetty on the minutes of central purchase committee meeting dated 25.02.84. He has categorically stated that the preparation of minutes or work / supply orders were prepared on the instructions of Sh. R.K. Mathur, in the normal course. He has further stated that the minutes were signed subsequently, by circulation. He has further stated that for awarding the work, the tenders are invited from CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 20 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi various companies and the lowest tenderer is normally awarded the work. However, at that time, there was no such practice prevailing in the company.
(iv) PW4 Sh. Ravinder Nath Sharma, Sr. Officer, ICICI Bank, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The examination of this witness could not be completed during the trial, despite opportunity.
(v) PW5 Sh. V.P. Singh, who was posted as Dy. General Manager (Vigilance) at HVOC Ltd. Nehru Place New Delhi in January 1991. This witness has identified his signatures on various production memos, vide which various documents were supplied by him to IO S.B. Sinha, Dy. S.P. CBI, during investigations of the present case.
(vi) PW6 Sh. Ramesh Chander Puliyani, the chartered engineer, who had provided consultancy services to HVOC and Ganesh Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. He has categorically stated that in the year 1980, he was hired by Ganesh Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. For consultancy work like making of steel and RCC structure for oil refining and allied works and was also assigned the work of CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 21 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi checking of bills from time to time. This witness has identified his signatures on various bills.
(vii) PW7 Sh. Radhey Shyam Goel, who joined Ganesh Flour Mills Ltd. in 1982 as Commerce Graduate Clerk. This witness has identified his signatures and the signatures of accused R.K .Mathur, Sr. General Manager, C.R. Ravindra, the then Accounts Officer, Ram Narayan Durga, Accounts Officer on various vouchers etc.
(viii) PW8 Sh. P.K. Bhatt, Sr. Manager from Canara Bank Lajpat Nagar Delhi, who provided certified copies of statement of accounts and other bank documents (account opening forms, ledger sheets etc.), pertaining to SB A/c No. 51943 of accused N.M. Shetty and the statements of account No. 15973 of Mrs. Nirmala Shetty, SB A/c. No. 57975 of Ms. Romita Shetty and account No. 51976 of Ms. Savita Shetty and SB A/c No. 18377 of Mr. Anand G. Shetty to S.B. Sinha, Dy. SP, ACB, CBI, Delhi, during investigations.
(ix) PW9 Sh. P.C. Anthony, who was posted as Protocol CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 22 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Assistant in the office of Textile Commissioner. He witnessed the raid conducted by the CBI at the office of M/s Reliance Engineering Works, on 05.10.1990.
(x) PW10 Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, who joined as commerce graduate clerk/superintendent in accounts division of Delhi Vanaspati Unit, Subzi Mandi, Ghantaghar of Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. This witness has identified his signatures and the signatures of Sh. Ram Narayan, Sh. S.B. Srivastava and Sh. C.R. Ravindra on various vouchers.
(xi) PW11 Sh. Shyam Lal Sachdeva, who was working as graduate clerk in sales division of Delhi Vanaspati Unit of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills on 12.10.81. He has identified his signatures and the signatures of Sh. R.K. Mathur and Sh. R.N. Durga and C. R. Ravindra, on various vouchers.
(xii) PW12 Sh. Dipayan Ram, who was working as Dy. Manager Production in HVOCL , Breakfast Food Manufacturing Unit, at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. He has deposed that there was a plan to construct a modern oil complex at Kirti Nagar Unit, since there CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 23 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi was sufficient plant in the unit, but, no storage tank was installed in BFF Unit, either by M/s, Reliance Engineering Works Bombay or M/s. Swastik Engineering New Delhi or by any other firm, at any point of time. He had further deposed that a joint spot inspection was done by the officers of HVOC and CBI, in respect of BFF unit for proposed modern oil complex and storage tank and inspection memo, dated 17.07.1992, Ex.PW.12/A, was prepared in his presence.
(xiii) PW13 Sh. Santosh Kumar, who worked with M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills as Manufacturing Chemist. This witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. PP for the CBI, but even in his cross examination, nothing incriminating has come on record, against the accused persons.
(xiv) PW14 Sh. I.S.Dass, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, who has produced the original paid cheque No. 250682, in the name of Mrs. Nirmala Shetty, before the court.
(xv) PW15 Sh. Hemant Kumar Tewari, who was posted as CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 24 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Technical Officer in M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills company, in the year 1984. He has identified his signatures on the minutes of the Central Purchase Committee meeting, dated 03.12.1984, but has deposed that he signed the minutes in total disagreement with the contents and he had not even attended the meeting. He has also identified his signatures on the minutes of the Central Purchase Committee, dated 07.12.1984, but has again stated that he signed the minutes, dated 07.12.1984, in total disagreement with its contents.
(xvi) PW16 Sh. Chandresh Kumar Mathur, who joined M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills company, on 20.12.1980 as Commerce Graduate Clerk. This witness has identified his signatures and the signatures of Shri R.N.Durga, Shri C.R.Ravindra, Shri Rajesh Malik and Sh. Jagdish Narain Sharma, on various vouchers. However, in his crossexamination, he has categorically stated that there was no illegality or irregularity in the preparation of the aforesaid vouchers and preparation of vouchers is a normal course of working of the company and all the vouchers were duly CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 25 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi approved by the competent authority.
(xvii) PW17 Sh. Rajender Prasad, who remained posted as Store Keeper at Delhi Vanaspati Unit of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mill Company Ltd. This witness has deposed that he used to issue the articles as per the challan and whenever any article was issued from the store, a requisition was received and the entry regarding issuance of that article, was made in a separate register. He has identified his signatures on the day book ledger and the various bills of M/s. Reliance Engineering Company. He has categorically stated that some of these bills of M/s. Reliance Engineering Company, does not bear his verification / remark. He had also identified his signatures on various delivery challans of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works.
(xviii) PW18 Dr. B.L.Shailesh, who joined M/s. Ganesh Flour Mill Company Ltd. in June, 1982 as Additional Managing Director. He has deposed that M/s. Ganesh Flour Mill Company Ltd., was a private company and in the year 1984, some portion of it, was nationalized. He has further deposed that the approval for CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 26 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi implementing any business transaction for carrying out any work for capital project and installation or for payment of advances, were done by C.M.D., on the proposal of G.M. (Finance). He has categorically stated that no approval was given by him on the letter, dated 05.12.1983, Ex.PW.18/A, letter, dated 06.12.1983 Ex.PW.18/B, letter dated 12.01.1984 Ex.PW.7/B, letter dated 03.05.1984, Ex.PW.11/B. He has further deposed that Shri R.K.Mathur, the then GM (Finance) had made notings on these aforesaid letters, regarding his approval, of his own. He had categorically stated that these documents were never seen by him earlier.
(xix) PW19 Sh. L.V.Reddy, who was working as Training Officer, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, on 05.10.1990. This witness had accompanied the CBI officials, when the search at the premises of accused N.M.Shetty at Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi, was conducted.
(xx) PW20 Sh. Jagjit Singh, Deputy Manager (Finance) M/s. Ganesh Flour Mill Company Ltd. , who handed over various CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 27 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi documents to Shri S.P.Sinha, Deputy SP, ACB, CBI, during investigation of the present case. This witness has also identified his signatures on several vouchers and advice notes. (xxi) PW21 Sh. Kailash Goel, Superintendent Accounts, Delhi Vanaspati Unit, HVOC Ltd., Delhi, who handed over some documents to Sh. S.B.Sinha, DSP, ACB, CBI, during investigations.
(xxii) PW22 Sh. S.C.Kapoor, who took over as Chairmancum Managing Director of HVOC on 06.06.1985. He had deposed that the capital projects during the relevant period were negotiated by the top management, which is as per the company's laws and the general manager (Technical), who became senior manager later, was the incharge of capital projects and subsequently, after the approval of the C.M.D, and signed by various general managers, based on the facts, given in the report. Subsequently, presumably, approved by the Board of Directors, as per the company law. He has categorically stated that the minutes of the Central Purchase Committee Meeting Ex.PW.22/B, bear his CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 28 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi signatures and he signed these minutes in the capacity of General Manager (Commercial). He has further deposed that the capital projects were under the charge of General Manager (Technical) / Senior General Manager and not in the charge of designated General Manager (Commercial). He had further deposed that the authority to approve the capital projects, was the board of directors of the company and CMD was the approving authority for placement of orders of purchase of articles for capital projects. In case, CMD was not available, then incharge i.e. Director concerned, was the approving authority. He has further deposed that he prepared a status report in the year 1985, after taking over the charge as CMD, about the status of the health of the company, because it was on the verge of bankruptcy and he mentioned the financial irregularities in the status paper. He has further stated that some projects / orders for which there was no approval of board of directors, were canceled by him, lateron. (xxiii) PW23 Sh. Biprabuddha Chatterjee. He was also posted as Senior Manager Production and Technical at HVOC, in July, CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 29 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 1992. This witness has also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.
(xxiv) PW24 Sh. S.K.Pashin, Inspector ACB, CBI, who assisted Mr. S.B.Sinha, Deputy SP, ACB, CBI, during the search of the residence of accused N.M.Shetty on 05.10.1990 and seized various documents, during investigations.
(xxv) PW25 Sh. Rai Singh Khatri, who was posted as Inspector, ACB, CBI, in 1990. This witness has conducted search at the premises of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, at Neelkanth Apartment, Chambore, Mumbai.
(xxvi) PW26 Sh. Hari Singh Gurwaria. This witness has also accompanied the CBI team, during the search of second floor office of accused M/s. Reliance Industries at Mumbai, on 05.10.1990.
(xxvii) PW27 Sh. Mehar Singh, ACP, who conducted the search at the residential premises of accused N.M.Shetty on 05.10.1990. (xxviii) PW28 Sh. Balvinder Singh, who registered FIR Ex.PW28/A, on a source information.
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 30 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
18. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., separately. All the accused have denied all the incriminating evidence against them and have deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also stated by accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, through its partner Vijay Kumar Malik, that the firm had completed the work assigned to it and the firm had to recover its money from HVOC. Accused Vijay Kumar Malik has also reiterated the above facts. Accused Narender Kumar Malik has further deposed that he was not the authorized representative of M/s. Reliance Engineering works and he never had any liasion with M/s. Ganesh Floor Mills company Ltd., or with HVOC. Accused Vijay Kumar Malik prayed for leading evidence in defence, but despite opportunity, he failed to produce any evidence and therefore, on his request, the defence evidence was closed, vide orders dated 29.04.2015.
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 31 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
19. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Shri Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for the CBI and Shri Mukesh Thakur, Advocate, for all the accused persons.
20. It has been argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI that the accused N.M. Shetty, while working as Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., approved the grant of orders for supply, erection and commissioning of plant and machinery and for supply of additional equipments for expansion program of Delhi Vanaspati Unit of M/s Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., to accused M/s Reliance Engineering Works, in which co accused V.K. Malik was the partner and co accused N.K. Malik was its power of attorney holder for liaisoning its work with M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. He has also argued that the order No. SCO/10676 dated 24.03.1983 for Rs.206.54 Lacs and the additional order dated 01.03.1984 for Rs.37.75 Lacs were placed on accused M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, without following the due procedure and without inviting any tender. He CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 32 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi has further argued that various bills were submitted by accused M/s Reliance Engineering Works to M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., on various dates and several letters were written by accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, requesting M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. to release various amounts. But, no work was actually done at the site. He has further argued that various cheques were issued in favour of M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, on the basis of their request letters and a huge amount stands paid to it, without any work being performed by the accused persons. He has also argued that the spot inspection memo dated 17.07.1992 Ex.PW12/A clearly indicates that no storage tank was installed at the site at BFF Unit, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. He has further argued that PW12 Sh. Dipayan Dam, Dy. Manager (Production) has proved this spot inspection memo and has deposed that no storage tank was installed at the site at any point of time.
21. The Ld. PP for the CBI has further argued that all the accused CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 33 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi persons had connived together and have cheated HVOC (formerly M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd.) and therefore, all the accused be held guilty and accordingly convicted for the various offences, charged against them.
22. On the other hand the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any case. He has also filed his written submissions on behalf of the accused persons. The main contention of the Ld. Defence counsel had remained that M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India, vide Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 and it received the assent of the President of India on 30.03.1984, to operate retrospectively, w.e.f., 28.01.1984. Prior to 28.01.1984, accused N.M. Shetty and R.K. Mathur (since diseased), were not the employees of HVOC and therefore, their acts, prior to 28.01.1984 cannot attract the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He has further argued that the order CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 34 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi bearing No. SCO/10676, dated 24.03.1983 for supply and erection of plant & machinery, had been placed on M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, much prior to the promulgation of the said Act and the promulgation of the said Act, retrospectively, w.e.f. 28.01.1984, does not make the award of order, dated 24.03.1983, to M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, a criminal offence, as the same shall violate the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions:
(i) Chief Inspector of Mines and another etc. Vs. Karam Chand Thapar etc., reported as AIR 1961 SC 838.
(ii) M/s. West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Madras and another, reported as AIR 1962 SC 1753.
23. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that till the year 1984, M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. was a private company and no tenders were being floated at any point of time, to place orders for supply, erection or commissioning of plant and CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 35 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi machinery or for expansion work of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. However, the orders were being placed on various parties, including M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, after adopting due procedure and due approval by the Central Purchase Committee of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd.
24. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the first order bearing No. SCO/10676 dated 24.03.1983 for about Rs.206.54 Lacs was placed on M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay on the basis of the recommendations made and decision taken in the meeting of Central Purchase Committee of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., as per the previous practice prevailing there and accused N.M. Shetty had duly approved the decision of the central purchase committee. He has further argued that the second order, dated 01.03.1984 was in continuation of the earlier order dated 24.03.1983, as the same was placed on M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, for supply of additional equipments at the site, worth Rs.37.75 Lacs and the same could not be CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 36 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi segregated from the first order dated 24.03.1983 and therefore, the same cannot be treated as a fresh order. He has also argued that no order was placed on M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, for installation of two 2000 MT storage tanks at Najafgarh unit of M/s. M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., and even as per the charge sheet, the said order was placed on M/s. Swastika Engineering.
25. The Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that the various documents placed on record, could not be proved in accordance with law, during the trial as the authors of these documents have not come to the court to depose about the preparation of these documents and therefore, these documents are not admissible in evidence. He has further argued that neither the first order dated 24.03.1983 nor the subsequent order dated 01.03.1984 could be proved on record as only the draft carbon copies of these orders could be brought before the court. Furthermore, Sh. R. Vijjendran, who signed the first order dated 24.03.1983 has not been examined. He has also argued that the second order dated CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 37 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 01.03.1984 was signed by coaccused R.K. Mathur (since diseased) Sh. V.K. Trehan, Sh. K. Kumar and Sh. A.K. Dass. But, Sh. V.K. Trehan has not been examined before the court during the trial and PW2 K. Kumar has not deposed anything about this document. He has further argued that the objections were raised about the mode of proof of these documents, i.e., Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F, as only the draft carbon copies of these two documents were produced before the court and none of the signatories were examined during the trial.
26. The Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that the alleged violation of rules or procedures, if any, has taken place in the year 1983, but, the FIR has been registered only on 04.09.1990, after an unexplained delay of more than seven years. Furthermore, the FIR has been registered only on the basis of some source information and no complaint was ever lodged by any of the officers, either of M/s Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. or of the HVOC. CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 38 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
27. The Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that the prosecution has failed to collect and produce the relevant cheques, vide which the payments were allegedly made to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, by M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and HVOC, on various dates. He has further argued that even the original bank statements, either of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd./HVOC or of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, could not be collected or produced before the court during the trial and all these documents have remained unproved. He has further argued that the photocopies of the statements of account of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. / HVOC does not indicate the withdrawal of the amounts of various cheques issued to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works and the photocopies of the statement of account of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works also does not indicate the credit of the various cheques. The cheque numbers, dates and amounts, as appearing in the photocopies of the statement of account of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. / HVOC are totally different from the cheques allegedly issued to CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 39 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi accused M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed even to prove the payment of any amount to M/s Reliance Engineering Works.
28. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that a mere irregularity in not following the rules or procedure, cannot attract any criminal liability on the accused persons and the prosecution has to prove dishonest intention or 'mensrea' on the part of the accused persons, beyond a shadow of doubt, to establish its case. The Ld. Defence counsel has also relied upon the following judgment, in support of his above contentions:
(i) C. Chenga Reddy & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as AIR 1996 SC 3390.
(ii) Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar Vs. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu), reported as AIR 1980 SC 499.
(iii) S. P. Bhatnagar & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 1979 SC 826.
29. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the accused N.M. Shetty had not falsified any account or any minutes of the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 40 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi meetings and he had only approved the minutes of the meetings of the central purchase committee of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and no evidence has come on record that accused N.M. Shetty had falsified or fabricated the minutes of the meetings. He has further argued that the approval of the minutes of the meetings by way of circulations was an accepted mode of approval of the minutes of the meeting and therefore, no criminality can be attached to the approval of the minutes of meeting, by way of circulation.
30. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that no evidence has come on record to prove any conspiracy or to prove that accused N.M. Shetty had performed various acts, in conspiracy with coaccused R.K. Mathur (since diseased) and M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Narender Kumar Malik and Vijay Kumar Malik. He has further argued that no evidence has come on record to indicate that accused Narender Kumar Malik was doing any liaisoning work on behalf of M/s. Reliance Engineering CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 41 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Works. He has prayed that there is not even an iota of evidence to prove any charge against any of the accused persons and therefore, all of them are liable to be acquitted.
31. I have perused the case file and I have also carefully gone through the written submissions and the various judgments, cited by the Ld. Defence counsel and I have also given my considered thoughts to the oral arguments addressed by the Ld. PP for the CBI and the Ld. Defence counsel.
32. Perusal of the record shows that it is the admitted case of the parties that M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., was taken over by the Government of India, vide Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1984, which received the assent of the President of India on 30.03.1984, with retrospective effect w.e.f. 28.01.1984. After its acquisition, the name of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., was changed to Hindustan Vegetable Oils Company Ltd. Till the date of its CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 42 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi acquisition by the Government of India, all the business of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., was being done by its board of directors and accused N.M. Shetty was its Chairman cum Managing Director. During the process of various business transactions of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., various decisions for supply, erection of plant & machinery etc were being taken by its central purchase committee.
33. It is also the admitted case of the parties that prior to 28.01.1984, various orders were being placed on behalf of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., on various parties, including M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, after due approval by its central purchase committee and subsequent approval by its Chairman cum Managing Director, N.M. Shetty. The first order SCO/10676 dated 24.03.1983 for Rs.206.54 Lacs was also placed on M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay in a similar fashion, on the basis of the decision of the central purchase committee M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. This order was therefore, placed on CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 43 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi the accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, much prior to the promulgation of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 and much prior to 30.03.1984 or 28.01.1984.
34. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Chief Inspector of Mines and another etc. Vs. Karam Chand Thapar etc., reported as AIR 1961 SC 838, as under :
24. Equally misconceived is the submission that this Court's decision in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1953 SCR 1188; (AIR 1953 SC 394) supports the argument. In that case, dealing with a suggestion that as the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance 48 of 1949 though enacted on September 11, 1947, i.e., after the alleged offences were committed, was in terms made retrospective by S. 2 which says that the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been in force in Vindhya Pradesh from August 9, 1949, the Ordinance was a law in force on or from August 9, 1949, this Court said : "This however would be to import a somewhat technical meaning into the phrase law in force used in Art. 20. Law in force referred to therein must be taken to relate not to a law "deemed to be in force", and thus brought into force, but the law factually in operation at the time or what may be called the then existing law.... It cannot therefore be doubted that the phrase "law in force" as CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 44 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi used in Art. 20 must be understood in its natural sense as being the law in fact in existence and in operation at the time of the commission of the offence as distinct from the law "deemed" to have become operative by virtue of power of legislature to pass retrospective laws."
25. As the Court clearly pointed out, it was considering only the question whether a law made after the alleged act, can by providing for its retrospective operation, make itself the "law in force", for the purpose of Art. 20; and it held that this could not be done. The words "law in force" referred to therein must be taken to relate not to a law "deemed to be in force", in this judgment should not be taken apart from its context. In the words that immediately follow the court was saying that "law in force relates to a law factually in operation at the time, or what may be called the then existing law". The question to be asked is : Was the law said to have been violated in operation at the alleged date of violation? The answer, in the cases before us, must be that it was. Art. 20(1) has therefore no application.
(emphasis supplied by me)
35. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as M/s. West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Madras and another, reported as AIR 1962 SC 1753, as under : CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 45 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
14. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Art. 20(1), because the said provisions illustrate the point that where the Constitution desired to prevent the retrospective operation of any law, it has adopted suitable phraseology to carry out that object. Art. 20(1) provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. By using the expression "law in force" in both the parts of Art. 20(1), the Constitution has clearly indicated that even if a criminal law was enacted by any, legislature retrospectively, its retrospective operation would be controlled by Art. 20(1). A law in force at the time postulates actual factual existence of the law at the relevant time and that excludes the retrospective application of any subsequent law. Art. 31(1), on the other hand, does not use the expression "law in force at the time"; it merely says "by authority of law", and so, if a subsequent law passed by the legislature is retrospective in its operation, it would satisfy the requirement of Art. 31(1) and would validate the impugned notification in the present case. Therefore, we are not satisfied that Mr. Nambiar is right in contending that the impugned notification is invalid for the reason that at the time when it was issued there was no law by whose authority it could be sustained.
(emphasis supplied by me) CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 46 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
36. When the ratio of the above pronouncements are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely held that even if, M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking ) Act, 1984 was promulgated retrospectively w.e.f. 28.01.1984, it was not the "law in force" on 24.03.1983, when the first order bearing No. SCO 10676 was awarded in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused N.M. Shetty was a government servant, as on 24.03.1983 and therefore, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are not attracted in the present case, to make the acts of accused N.M. Shetty, prior to 28.01.1984 (i.e. on 24.03.1983), a criminal offence.
37. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as C. Chenga Reddy & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as AIR 1996 SC 3390, as under :
21. On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 47 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi established that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviors of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the concerned officials and contractors may give rise to strong suspicious but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the trial court and the High Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper. That because of the actions of the appellants in breach of codal provisions, instructions and procedural safeguards, the State may have suffered financially, particularly by allotment of work on nomination basis without inviting tenders, but those acts of omission and commission by themselves do not establish the commission of criminal offences alleged against them. We may reiterate that CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 48 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi once the report, Ext. P11, is ruled out of consideration as inadmissible, then it is not safe to rely on the mere impressions of the witnesses to hold the appellants guilty of the offences alleged against them. The prosecution has failed to establish that in 197980, no work of jungle clearance in the Gandipalem Project Division was undertaken and that false and fabricated documents were prepared with a view to misappropriate government funds. The prosecution has not even able to establish that less work of jungle clearance was undertaken but payment was shown to have been made for excessive work and some amount out of the payments made for the work were thus misappropriated by the appellants in connivance with the contractors. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants (which had been reduced by the High Court to a token sentence) under the circumstances cannot be sustained and we accordingly accept the appeal and set aside their conviction and sentence. Fine paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.
(emphasis supplied by me)
38. Even in the present case it has been alleged by the prosecution that the award of contract to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, was approved by accused N.M. Shetty, on behalf of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., without inviting any tenders and therefore, rules and procedures were not CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 49 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi adopted by him, before awarding contract to coaccused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works. But, PW3 Sh. A.K. Dass, who was the commercial officer of M/s. M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., at the relevant time, has categorically stated in his deposition before the court that at the relevant time, there was no such practice prevailing in the company to invite tenders from various companies for awarding the work.
39. Perusal of the record further shows that a carbon copy of the order bearing No. SCO /10676, dated 24.03.1983, has been placed on record and the same is Ex.PW3/E. But, perusal of the same indicates that it is in the form of a draft being signed by R. Vijayendran, Sr. Commercial Officer and several corrections have been made in this draft order Ex.PW3/E, on page5, and the names of four officers have been mentioned, in short, in handwriting of some officer and the signatures of Sh. R. Vijayendran are appearing at pointA, as Sr. Commercial Officer, but, his designation has been cut down with pen and above his CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 50 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi signatures the words "for Hindustan Vegetable Oil Co. Ltd." have been incorporated. The designations of several officers to whom the copy was to be sent is also added, at last, incorporated at page5 of this order. All these cuttings and overwritings clearly indicate that this is not the actual order and is only a draft of the actual order bearing No. SCO/10676 dated 24.03.1983. The original order has never been seized by the IO during the investigations and is never produced before the court during the trial. Even Sh. R. Vijayendran, Sr. Commercial Officer of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. has not been examined during the trial to make clarifications regarding this order. Therefore, the actual order dated 24.03.1983 bearing No. SCO / 10676, in the name of the accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, could not be proved on record.
40. Perusal of the record further shows that a carbon copy of the subsequent order dated 01.03.1984 has been placed on record as Ex.PW3/F and it runs in four pages and the same has been CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 51 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi issued on the letter head of Ganesh Flour Mills, Subzi Mandi, Delhi7. Perusal of the same further shows that this copy has been signed by Sh. R.K. Mathur, Sr. General Manager, V.K. Trehan, General Manager, K. Kumar, Manager (Finance) and A.K. Dass, Commercial Officer. Sh. R.K. Mathur, Sr. General Manager, was an accused in the present case and had already expired during the trial. Sh. V.K. Trehan has not been examined before the court, during the trial. Sh. K. Kumar, Manager (Finance) has been examined as PW2, but, he has not uttered a single word about this order. However, Sh. A.K. Dass who has been examined before the court as PW3 has identified his signatures on this carbon copy of the order, dated 01.03.1984, Ex.PW3/F, but, the original copy of this order also, has not been produced before the court, at any point of time and the same was never seized by the IO during the investigations.
41. Perusal of the record further shows that the depositions of PW2 Sh. K. Kumar, Manager (Finance) and PW3 Sh. A.K. Dass, CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 52 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Commercial Officer, have seriously dented the prosecution story. PW2 Sh. Kishore Kumar, has proved the minutes of the meeting of central purchase committee, dated 07.12.1983, as Ex.PW2/B and has categorically stated that in this meeting a decision was taken for erection and commission of MS Storage tanks at Modern Oil Complex, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. He has not deposed anything about the award of order, dated 24.03.1983. He has categorically stated that the approval of awarding the contract to M/s. Swastika Engineers was accorded by N.M. Shetty. He has further categorically stated that the letter of intent dated 04.12.1983 for erection and commissioning of two 2000 MT capacity MS Storage tank for the storage of edible oils of HBFF Oil Complex, Delhi, was issued to M/s. Swastika Engineering, under signatures of A.K. Dass and R.K. Mathur. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that this order was awarded to M/s. Swastika Engineering. On the contrary, it has remained the case of the prosecution that both the orders for erection and commissioning of the MS Storage tanks were awarded to CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 53 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay.
42. PW3 Sh. A.K. Dass, Commercial Officer has also proved the various minutes of the central purchase committee meetings. He has also stated that for awarding the work, the tenders are invited from various companies and the lowest tenderer is normally awarded the work. But, at the time of awarding the contracts to M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, there was no such practice prevailing in the company.
43. From the testimonies of PW2 Sh. K. Kumar and PW3 Sh.
A.K. Dass, it can be safely inferred that for awarding various contracts, there was no such practice of inviting tenders from various parties. Even otherwise, the Board of Directors of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., was not required or supposed to award the contracts by following the government rules and procedures as M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. was not acquired by the Government of India, till 30.03.1984 (retrospectively w.e.f. CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 54 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 28.01.1984). The officers of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., including the accused N.M. Shetty, its chairman and chief executive director, were not bound by any law to follow the government rules or procedures, regarding award of contracts by inviting tender, prior to 30.01.1984 or 28.01.1984. Till 30.03.1984, the award of contracts was purely in the discretionary powers of the board of directors of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., headed by its chairmancummanaging director, accused N.M. Shetty. Flouting of government rules, by a private person, for conducting his own business, can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as illegal.
44. Perusal of the draft order dated 01.03.1984 further indicates that this order was placed on accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, for supply of additional equipments for the earlier expansion program of M/s Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., at its Delhi Unit and this order was awarded to M/s Reliance Engineering Works, only in continuation of the earlier order dated 24.03.1983. CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 55 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Perusal of these two orders clearly indicates that these two orders cannot be segregated from each other and are to be read together and are to be treated as a single order. As the original award of contract was issued in favour of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, on 24.03.1983, in pursuance to the decision of the board of directors of M/s Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., vide minutes of the meeting Ex.PW22/B. Another meeting of the central purchase committee was held on 25.02.1984 for taking the decision to supply additional equipments and the minutes of the meeting dated 25.02.1984 are Ex.PW3/D,. In pursuance to the meeting dated 25.02.1984, the second order dated 01.031984 was placed on accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay. The minutes of meeting dated 25.02.1984, no where reflects that M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., was under
acquisition process of the Government of India. Furthermore, no human being can anticipate that the legislature shall enact a law with retrospective effect, which shall make their present acts, an offence in future. This is what exactly has happened in the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 56 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi present case.
45. Perusal of the record further shows that even after promulgation of Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984, the Board of Directors of HVOC has taken a decision to continue with the previous projects, which were awarded to various parties by M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. PW1 Sh. R.K. Verma, who was GM (Finance), at the relevant time, has categorically stated that in the year 1985 a Board Meeting was held and a decision was taken to cancel the pending projects, due to paucity of time, so that liquidated damages, claims, interests etc may not come up at a later stage. However, a decision was taken later on, by the Board to continue with projects which were partially complete and were near completion, as there was pressure of public distribution of oils in the country.
46. Perusal of the record further shows that during the trial, the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 57 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi prosecution has even failed to prove the payments made to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay. During the course of arguments, the Ld. PP for the CBI has forcefully argued that various cheques were issued to accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay on the instruction of coaccused R.K. Mathur (since deceased) on the request letters of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, despite of the fact that no work was ever executed at the spot.
47. Perusal of the record shows that a large number of request letters have been issued on behalf of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, on various dates, whereby M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., was requested to release various amounts against order No. SCO/ 10676. It is further observed that in pursuance to these request letters, various cheques were issued by M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works and thereafter, the cheque number with date, has been mentioned on these request letters by putting CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 58 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi a stamp of "PAID", on these letters. Perusal of the record further shows that the following request letters have been issued on behalf of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works and in pursuance of these letters, payment vouchers were prepared and cheques were issued by M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd.:
(i) Request letter dated 05.12.1983 Ex.PW18/A , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 05.12.83 Ex.PW7/F was prepared for release of cheque No. 990443 for a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs;
(ii) Request letter dated 06.12.1983 Ex.PW18/B , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 06.12.83 Ex.PW7/E was prepared for release of cheque No. 990464 for a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs;
(iii) Request letter dated 12.01.1984 Ex.PW17/B , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 12.01.84 Ex.PW7/A was prepared for release of cheque No. 991215 for a sum of Rs.10 Lacs;
(iv) Request letter dated 05.03.1984 Ex.PW11/A , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 05.03.1984 Ex.PW7/H was CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 59 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi prepared for release of cheque No. 992104 for a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs;
(v) Request letter dated 06.03.1984, in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 07.03.84 Ex.PW7/J was prepared for release of cheque No. 992126 for a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs;
(vi) Request letter dated 03.05.1984 Ex.PW11/B, in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 03.05.1984 Ex.PW7/K was prepared for release of cheque No. 993498 for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs;
(vii) Request letter dated 21.05.1984 Ex.PW11/E , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 21.05.1984 Ex.PW7/L was prepared for release of cheque No. 993883 for a sum of Rs.10 Lacs;
(viii) Request letter dated 23.05.1984 Ex.PW11/C, in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 23.05.1984 Ex.PW7/M was prepared for release of cheque No. 993898 for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs;
(ix) Payment voucher dated 13.08.1984 Ex.PW7/N was prepared CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 60 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi for release of cheque No. 996200 for a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs. No request letter pertaining to this cheque is on record;
(x) Payment voucher dated 23.08.1984 Ex.PW7/P was prepared for release of cheque No. 996330 for a sum of Rs. 12,160.20p.
No request letter, pertaining to this cheque is on record;
(xi) Request letter dated 12.10.1984 Ex.PW11/D , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 12.10.1984 Ex.PW7/Q was prepared for release of cheque No. 5970556 for a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs;
(xii) Request letter dated 04.12.1984 Ex.PW11/F , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 04.12.84 Ex.PW7/G was prepared for release of cheque No. 512710 for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs;
(xiii) Request letter dated 07.12.1984 Ex.PW10/A , in pursuance to which payment voucher dated 07.12.84 Ex.PW7/R was prepared for release of cheque No. 512765 for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs.
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 61 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
48. During the investigations, the IO had also collected the statements of the bank accounts of HVOC (Formerly M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd.) as well as the bank account of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay. But, these bank statements could not be proved during the trial as only the photocopies of ledgers have been placed on record. No bank official has been called with the relevant record and the original bank record was never produced before the court, during the trial. Perusal of the photocopies of the bank statements of HVOC and accused M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, indicates that the cheques issued by M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. / HVOC, in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, in pursuance to its various request letters, were not mentioned in these bank statements. The bank statement of the account of HVOC, does not show the withdrawal (debit) of these cheques in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works. The bank account of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works also does not indicate the credit of the cheques in its account. The bank CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 62 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi statements of HVOC indicate debit of some cheques in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, but, the date, amount and cheque number, mentioned in the bank statement are totally different from the above mentioned cheques, which were allegedly issued in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, on its request letters. It is also very relevant to note that none of these cheques, in original, have been seized by the IO during the investigations. Therefore, even the alleged payments, in favour of accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, have remained NOT PROVED.
49. Perusal of the record shows PW12 Sh. Dipayan Dam has categorically stated that HVOC was having breakfast food manufacturing unit (BFF Unit) at Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, and there was a plan to construct a modern oil complex in the premises as there was sufficient land in the said unit. He has further stated that HVOC was having its another unit at Delhi, i.e., Delhi Vanaspati Unit, but, there was no proposal to have modern CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 63 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi oil complex, due to nonavailability of space in that unit. He has further stated that there was no proposal for installation of storage tank, due to shortage of space and no storage tank was constructed there at any point of time. He has categorically stated that no storage tank was installed in BFF unit, either by M/s Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay, or M/s. Swastika Engineering, New Delhi, or by any other firm, at any point of time. He has further stated that during investigations of this case, a joint spot inspection was done by the officials of HVOC and CBI, in respect of BFF unit for proposed modern oil complex and storage tank and whatever was found at the spot, during inspection, memo Ex.PW12/A was prepared in this regard. But, perusal of the memo Ex.PW12/A indicates that this memo had been prepared during the investigations of some other case bearing No. RC 38(A)/90DLI/CBI. This inspection at the premises of breakfast foods unit, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi15, was never conducted during the investigations of the present case. How this document has been placed on record in the present case is a CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 64 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi mystery to this court. The spot inspection memo Ex.PW12/A should have been placed in the case file of RC 38(A)/90DLI/CBI. The status of RC 38(A)/90DLI/CBI is not known to the IO or even to the Ld. PP for the CBI. Perusal of the record further shows that a large number of documents, including the various production memos, seizure memos etc., pertaining to RC 38(A)/90 DLI/CBI are also placed on record, with the charge sheet in the present case. The purpose of placing these documents of RC 38(A)/90 DLI/CBI, in the present case file, is not clear. The Ld. PP for the CBI has also failed to disclose any rule or provision of law under which, the documents collected during investigation of some other case, can be placed on record or proved by the prosecution in the trial for offences in the present case. Furthermore, no inspection was done by the CBI team or the officers of the HVOC at the Delhi Vanaspati Unit at Subzi Mandi, Delhi, where the vanaspati oil was actually being prepared.
50. Perusal of the record further shows that there is no evidence CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 65 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi on record which indicate that accused N.M. Shetty, the then Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., had entered into the conspiracy with the other co accused persons to award the work contracts in favour of co accused M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Bombay Nothing has come on record that M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, had adopted illegal means to influence accused N.M. Shetty and other officials of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., to obtain work orders, in violation of the rules prevailing at the relevant time. No evidence of conspiracy has come on record. There is no evidence on record even to indicate that coaccused Narender Kumar Malik was holder of the power of attorney on behalf of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works and he had been liaisoning with the officials of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., including the accused N.M. Shetty and R.K. Mathur (since deceased). No document bears the signatures of accused Narender Kumar Malik, as the authorized representative of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works. There is no evidence on record which indicates that the accused CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 66 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi persons have connived together and in pursuance to the conspiracy the minutes of the meetings of the central purchase committee of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., were fabricated later on, to favour coaccused M/s Reliance Engineering Works.
51. Perusal of the record further shows that the alleged discrepancies in adopting the rules and procedures by accused N.M. Shetty and R.K. Mathur (since deceased) have taken place in the year 1983, when the work order, dated 24.03.1983, was firstly awarded in favour of M/s. Reliance Engineering Works. But, the prosecution has failed to produce any written rules of procedure, which were being followed by the officers of M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., at that time. Nothing has come on record that accused N.M. Shetty had forged and fabricated the minutes of the meeting later on. No evidence has come on record to indicate that accused N.M. Shetty has tampered the minutes of the meeting of the central purchase committee or has tampered the accounts of the company. Even otherwise, the fault of the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 67 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi accused persons, if any, in not inviting the tenders or in not following some rules or procedures, cannot lead to the conclusion of guilt against the accused persons.
52. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as S.P. Bhatnagar & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 1979 SC 826, as under :
21. Following the decision in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (supra), it was held by this Court in S.K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra (supra) that the abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of the section must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the accused caused deliberate loss to the department. It was further held in this case that it is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained any pecuniary advantage for some other person. It would, therefore, be necessary to find out in this case as to whether the accused abused their position and acted dishonestly or with a corrupt or oblique motive in having the contract in question entrusted to A4. As the courts below have rested their judgments on a constellation of circumstances, it would be well to bear in mind the fundamental rule relating to the proof of guilt based on circumstantial evidence which has been settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. The rule is to the effect that in cases CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 68 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi depending on circumstantial evidence, there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In such cases the mind is apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely it is, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.
22. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (See Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (1952) SCR 1091); Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1953) SCR 94 and Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520).
(emphasis supplied by me) CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 69 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
53. Perusal of the record shows that the alleged discrepancies were detected by the officers of the HVOC, in the year 1987, but, even thereafter, no complaint was lodged by any of its officers against any of the accused persons. PW22 Sh. S.C. Kapoor has taken over as the ChairmancumManaging Director of HVOC on 06.06.1985 and he prepared the status report in the year 1985, but, still no irregularities or illegalities were detected by him at any point of time. No complaint was lodged by him, regarding the alleged irregularities or illegalities, committed by the accused persons at M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., at any time. The FIR had been registered on 04.09.1990, after a lapse of more than seven years of awarding the first order, dated 24.03.1983. The delay in registration of the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution during the trial. Furthermore, the FIR was registered only on the basis of the some source information.
54. In view of above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 70 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi any of the accused persons. Therefore, all the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable, u/s 120B IPC, read with section 420, 477A of IPC and Section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the P.C.Act, 1947. All the accused are also acquitted for the substantive offence, punishable u/s 420 IPC. Accused N.M.Shetty is also acquitted of the additional charges for the offences punishable, u/s 477A IPC and the substantive offence punishable u/s 5 (2) r/w Sec. 5(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1947. Their bail bonds are accordingly canceled and sureties are discharged.
55. Accused N.M.Shetty, Narender Kumar Malik and Vijay Kumar Malik have already submitted their bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C., on 07.05.2015. The same shall remain accepted for a period of six months from today.
56. The accused are further directed to appear before the Appellate Court, as and when directed or summoned by the CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 71 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Appellate Court, in any appeal, if preferred by the Prosecution / CBI, against their acquittals by this court today. It is ordered accordingly.
Announced in open Court
nd
on 22 day of May, 2015 BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CBI Vs. N.M. Shetty etc. Page 72 of 72 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi