Madras High Court
N. Ramachandran vs State Rep. By on 5 July, 2013
Author: S. Palanivelu
Bench: S.Palanivelu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.07.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Original Petition No.28684 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.N. Ramachandran 2.V.T.Abdul Raheem : Petitioner/Accused 2 & 1 Vs. State rep. by SPE : CBI : ACB : Chennai Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 6 : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Special C.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of Special Judge, Puducherry and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.N.R. Elango Senior Counsel for Mr.A. Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.N. Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases O R D E R
1. Following are the allegations contained in the FIR:-
Shri V.T.Raheem, Inspector of Police (Stores), Puducherry Polcie, Puducherry (A-1), Shri N. Ramachandran, Superintendent of Police (HQ), Puducherry Police, Puducherry (A-2) and Shri.N.C. Saravanan, Proprietor, M/s. Ganesh Enterprises, Puducherry (A-3), entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves, with an intent to cheat Puducherry Police in the matter of purchase of 2000 numbers of crash helmets for the use of Puducherry Police. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, Shri V.T.Abdul Raheem (A-1), without any actual requirement and without indents from field units, dishonestly and fraudulently initiated a proposal on 19.2.2009 to pruchase 2000 crash helmets and submitted to Shri N.Ramachandran, Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters) for his approval. In furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy, Shri N.C. Saravanan submitted quotations in the name of six firms, two of which are owned by Shri N.C.Saravanan (A-3) himself and do not deal with helmets and the remaining firms are creation of himself onlyh for the purpose of quoting competitive quotations Shri N.Ramachandran (A-2) knowing fully well that there was no requirement and the firms are bogus and non-existent, had approved the above proposal on the same day without following the guidelines. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the order was placed with M/s.N.S.Lokesh Head Wear, to supply 2000 crash helmets at the rate of Rs.960/-(excluding sales tax CST) each. Consequently, Shri N.C.Saravanan (A-3), without actually supplying helmets, submitted forged and fabricated bills for Rs.19.96 lakhs as if the helmets were supplied. Shri V.T. Abdul Raheem (A-1) and Shri N. Ramachandran (A-2) abused their official position knowing fully well that the firm had not supplied any helmets; and the bill submitted by A-3 was fabricated and forged, who processed the bill and forwarded it to the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Government of Puducherry for payment. The payment was also released by the Government, which caused undue loss of Rs.19.96 lakhs to Puducherry Police and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons."
2.The contents of the Audit Report which paved way leading to the lodging of FIR is as follows:
"Audit Slip.70 20.04.2009 Excess procurement of Helmets for police personnel resulting in additional expenditure of Rs.14.40 lakhs.
In order to maintain the law and order operation and for giving security to police force while on duty, it was proposed (Feb 2009) to provide 2000 helmets for all the upper and lower subordinates. Expr. sanction for Rs.19,96,800/- was accorded on 6.3.2009 by the Superintendent of Police (HQ) for purchase of 2000 helmets @ Rs.960/- each and supply order was placed with M/s.N.S.Lokesh Head Wear, Chennai for supply of the helmets. In this connection, the following observations are made in that:-
As of Feb.2009 there were only 203 two wheelers availabale with the police department in the Union Territory of Puducherry as per the details furnished by the Department. Consideraing two personnel for every two wheeler the number of helmets required would be 406 only, even allowing an increasing of about 25% the maximum requirement woudl be 500 helmets only as against 2000 procured. Hence, the additional 1500 helmets purchased amounting to Rs.14,40,000/- (1500 @ Rs.900/- each) is considered as extra expenditure incurred for purchase of excess helmets than actually required. The reasons for purchase of helmets in excess of requirement may also be furnished to Audit.
Sd/- x x x Audit Officer To The Superintendent of Police (HQ) Puducherry."
3. Serious irregularities found in the purchase of helmets are as under:
i.The order was placed for purchasing 2000 helmets without conducting proper assessment.
ii.The order was placed without getting the approval or consent of the Director General of Police.
iii. The Survey Committee and the Quality Control Committee were not consulted with before venturing into the purchase. No Quality Control Committee meeting was held.
iv.The Stores Section has not taken any initiative to draw a list of Registered suppliers as laid down under GFR Rule 142.
v.The tender notice was issued only to the selected six firms, that too, the proprietor of the firms are on and the same.
vi.As contemplated under GFR Rule 157, no exercise was undertaken by the Stores Section.
vii.The description and the quality of the helmet, its make, size, etc., have not been mentioned in the supply order.
viii.The process of opening the tenders and the issue of sanction order was made on the same day i.e., 6.3.2009. It shows that the proposal was not examined properly.
ix.The Stores Section had failed to examine the rate reasonableness of the helmet.
x. 425 numbers of helmets were purchased by the department lastly on 30.7.2005 at the rate of Rs.447/- each. As such, the rate of Rs.960/- per helmet, is found to be exorbitant within a short span of four years.
xi.The helmet mentioned in the supply order is not in accordance with the normal pattern being used by the Police personnel during the law and order situation.
xii.The Superintendent of Police (HQ) issued the sanction order without having financial powers to make purchases to the extent of Rs.19,96,800/-
xiii.The Junior Accounts Officer and the Drawing and the Disbursing Officer failed to verify the bill properly and passed the bill haphazardly.
xiv.No sample helmet was available in the Stores Section.
xv.Wide publicity was not given either through web or local dailies as mentioned in the GFR Rules.
xvi.Last date for submission of quotations was not fixed in order to facilitate favoured parties.
xvii.The quotations were not received through Despatch Section.
xviii.There is a specific mention in the GO Ms.No.59/2003 that the helmet should only be given to the Armed Police and hence, helmets could have been purchased only for PAP personnel.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Puducherry has submitted a note to the Director General of Police, Puducherry, in the following lines as to the irregularities on 22.6.2009:
"Please find enclosed the Enquiry Report, submitted by the constituted Committee to enquire into the purchase of helmets by the Chief Stores vide reference cited. The said Committee, after perusal of the related filed and other connected documents, is of the opinion that the said purchase was not in order as per the financial rules and regulation.
2. It has been provided in the financial rules that the authorities possessing financial powers for procuring goods in public interest, should have the responsibility and accountability to bring efficiency, economy, transparency and fair-play in order to secure the best value for money.
3. The above said purchase has been found to be deficient in
(a) proposing to purchase rider helmets instead of riot helmets, which is in a vitiation of the prescribed norms. Helmets, as an uniformed article, is applicable only in respect of PAP.
(b) The entire process was not fair, transparent and competitive.
(c) Hence, the cost of helmets proposed to be purchased was at a prohibitive price.
(d) At every stage, as envisaged in the GFR, the procuring authority should have placed on record the terms and considerations, which weighed with it while taking the procuring decision. This was not done as seen in the files.
(e) Finally, even though the rules may permit the Head of Office to purchase the uniformed articles for any value, it would be in the fitness of things for the authority to keep the senior formations, duly informed, on file."
5. The Director General of Police, Puducherry, constituted a committee with the following brass of police, all by name:
1.The Senior Inspector of Police (Law & Order )as Chairman
2.The Superintendent of Police (North) as Member
3.The Superintendent of Police (VAC) as Member
6. For enquiry into the alleged excess procurement of helmets by the Store Section in March 2009, the Committee called for the records from Store Section through Superintendent of Police (HQ) and conducted enquiry. The committee prepared a detailed report as to the irregularities found in the process of purchasing helmets and submitted a report to the Director General of Police on 20.06.2009.
7. Among the accused 8 in number, the petitioners are second and first accused, who were working as Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police respectively. The Final Report filed by the respondent contains following charges as against these petitioners:
"During the year 2009, A-1 to A-8 entered into a criminal conspiracy at Puducherry and other places, to do or cause to be done certain illegal acts, viz., to cheat the Puducherry Police, in the matter of purchase of 2000 numbers of helmets and, in pursuance of the conspiracy, A-4 had initiated a proposal for purchase of helmets, which was recommended and forwarded by A-1 to A-2, without observing any formalities prescribed in the General Financial Rules (GFR), applicable for making such purchases. The proposal was approved by A-2 and tender notices were given only to the selected six firms run by A-3.
Thereby, the public servants A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6, abused and misused their official position and facilitated A-3 to obtain pecuniary advantage from Puducherry Police. The Demand Draft was not handed over to A-3 due to certain observations made by the Audit Inspection. But for this, the Demand Draft would have been given to A-3 and a wrongful loss of Rs.19,96,800/- would have been caused to the Puducherry Police with corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. Thus, A-1 to A-8 have committed the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 419, 468, 471, 477-A and 420 r/w 511 IPC and u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof."
8. The allegations which would indicate the involvement of both the petitioners are that, the proposal for purchase of procuring 2000 numbers of helmets (against their available strength of 2381 police personnel) was signed and forwarded by A1 to A2, that since A5 was working as Junior Accounts Officer was on leave, the proposal was submitted by A1 directly to A2, that the said proposal was approved as such by A2 and accordingly call letters signed by A2 were sent to all the six firms on the same date on behalf of the Director General of Police, Puducherry and that A1, A2, A4 and A5 were instrumental in processing the proposals submitted by A3.
9. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.R. Elango appearing for the petitioners would contend that inasmuch as the complainant himself is the investigating authority, the proceeding and investigation is vitiated, that the charges would not attract the ingredients of provisions as shown in the charge sheet and the final report, that none can smell rat on the official duties discharged by the petitioners, that the final report was not disclosed any criminal intention on the part of the petitioners, that even in the charge sheet for the available strength of 2381 police personnel, only 2000 helmets were proposed to be procured, that approval was accorded by the competent authority, that the sanction to prosecute the petitioners is not proper, that the investigating officer is not an financial expert to comment on the inflation and the price hike within last four years, that the investigating officer has not adverted to the deliberations of the process of police Puducherry to the requirement and contingencies of procuring helmets for the police personnel, that the FIR was lodged with malice, malafides of implicating the petitioners on false allegations and that allowing the case to go for trial is a futile exercise and these petitioners also have to face the ordeal of trial unnecessary.
10. Repelling the above said contentions, Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent would argue that the respondent police only after thorough investigation have filed report, that the involvement of the petitioners in the offence is explicit in the FIR and Final Report, that there is no foul play on the part of the respondent police in lodging FIR and Final Report, that significant materials are available to show that the petitioners have misused their official position, that the petitioners have allowed to pass proposal without observing any formalities prescribed in the General Financial Rules (GFR) applicable for making such purchase, that the tenders were issued to the selected 6 firms run by A2, that the petitioners were instrumental for the other accused to act dishonestly and fraudulently and that there is no ground made out to quash the proceedings and the petitioners have to face trial.
11. This Court has heard the rival submissions of both the learned counsel with rapt attention. The allegations in the FIR would show that every stage of the case in which the beginning of the events has started by the petitioners which could be easily perceived. It may come to light whether these petitioners are wary of the fact that A3 floated fictitious grounds for quoting competitive rates. A2 is alleged to have approved the proposal without observing the appropriate procedures, placed by A1. Further, he is alleged to have done it without nod officially or sanction of the competent authority. A1 is also said to have suggested to call quotations from 6 firms with fictitious names knowingly and dishonestly. Both of them are stated to have very well known that the said firms do not deal with supply of helmets.
12. It is worthwhile to note that the Chairman and Members of the Committee constituted by the Director General of Police, Puducherry, are only the senior officials of the police department. They very well know all the formalities and procedures to be followed by the sanctioning authority before passing orders for spending Government money. Genuineness of the Audit Report could be made clear only at the final hearing of the case. Tenders were called for without adequate advertisements in the medias, that the helmets purchased were not upto the quality of the normal pattern to be used by the police personnel, that the officials processed the transaction did not check up the prevailing cost of the helmet, that when the value of the helmet to be purchased for at Rs.447/- each as on 30.7.2005, the cost of Rs.960/- per helmet proposed to be purchased would cost double the rate when compared to the purchase took place in the year 2005 and that various irregularities are also remarkable. Since higher police officials were members of the committee, they had gone deep into the matter and drawn the report, when the report is scrutinised carefully. It is also stated in the report that the Survey Committee did not initiate steps to ascertain the actual quantity of the helmets, that the processing authority should be aware of the credentials of manufacturing capacity, quality control system, past performance, after sales service and financial background of the suppliers, but it was not done, that the relevant rules in General Financial Rules 2005 were not considered and forwarded at the time of calling for tenders and finalising the same and that without any necessity the officials have stepped into the process of purchasing the helmets to a higher number than what was required.
13. This Court has gone through the Audit Report, Report of the Committee and other materials available on record with due care and found that there is no reason for quashing the proceedings. The contentions placed by the petitioners would be considered only at the final hearing of the case. In such view of the matter, this petition for quashing the Case in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file the Special Judge, Puducherry is devoid of merits and suffers dismissal.
14. In fine, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
05.07.2013 Index :yes Internet:yes ggs To
1.The Special Judge, Puducherry.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.
S. PALANIVELU, J.
ggs Pre-delivery Order in:
CRL.O.P.No.28684 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 201005.07.2013