Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sh. C.K.S. Raje (Since Expired) on 15 February, 2017

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sh. C.K.S. Raje (Since Expired) on 15 February, 2017

IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT (CBI) 09, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI : DELHI.

CC No. 10/15

R.C. No.69(A)/91/CBI/ACB/ND

Case I.D. No.02401R003571196

Central Bureau of Investigation

Versus

1. Sh. C.K.S. Raje (Since Expired)
Former Chairman
National Airport Authority
New Delhi.
R/o E72/3/SFS Flats
Saket, New Delhi.

2. Sh. M.S. Parthasarathy (Since Expired)
Executive Director (Retd.)
National Airport Authority
New Delhi.
R/o 1.1.728, Gandhi Nagar
New Bakaram, Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh.

3. Sh. P. Rajendran

CC No. 10/15 Page 1 of 154
Director (Equipment)
National Airport Authority, New Delhi.
R/o E1, INA Colony
New Delhi.

4. Sh. M.K. Ganeshan
S/o Late Sh. N.N. Ganeshan
Member (Finance) (Retd.)
National Airport Authority
New Delhi.
R/o 58P, BlockH, DDA Flats
Saket, New Delhi.

5. Sh. N.K. Bhartiya
Managing Director
M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co.
Shahibabad, U.P.
R/o 42A, Friends Colony (East)
New Delhi.

6. Sh. A.K. Bhartiya (Since Expired)
C/o M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd.
Shahibabad, U.P.
R/o 42A, Friends Colony (East)
New Delhi.

Date of Institution : 21.12.1996
Date of Arguments : 14.12.2016
Date of Judgment : 08.02.2017

CC No. 10/15 Page 2 of 154
JUDGMENT

1. On 09.12.1991 a case was registered by the CBI against

the accused persons, namely, (1) C.K.S. Raje, Chairman,

National Airport Authority of India, New Delhi, (2) M.S.

Parthasarathy, Executive Director, National Airport

Authority of India, New Delhi, (3) P. Rajendran, Director

(Equipment), National Airport Authority of India, New Delhi

and M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd. This FIR

was registered regarding the criminal conspiracy hatched

by the above mentioned accused persons. The CBI had

filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for

causing undue pecuniary advantage to themselves and

to the said company, thereby causing loss to the

Government in the purchase of Crash Fire Tenders worth

Rs. 17.47 Crores.

CC No. 10/15 Page 3 of 154
Case of the Prosecution as mentioned in the Charge
Sheet

2. In the year 1989, accused persons, namely, C.K.S. Raje,

M.S. Parthasarthy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan

have entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other

and with accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K.

Bhartiya of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd.

with a view to gain pecuniary advantage for themselves

and to the accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya and

A.K. Bhartiya. Thereby, causing corresponding loss to the

Government in the purchase of Crash Fire Tenders

(CFTs) worth Rs. 17.47 Crores.

3. Pursuant to the aforementioned criminal conspiracy,

accused persons, namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan and P. Rajendran

processed the file and placed supply order on M/s.

CC No. 10/15 Page 4 of 154
Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Company Ltd. for

supplying 56 Crash Fire Tenders @ Rs. 29.11 Lacs per

unit plus Central Sales Tax. The demand of CFTs was

overprojected without any base and without assessment

of actual requirement. An advance to the tune of

Rs. 1,74,72,000/ (i.e. 10% of the amount of the supply

order) was released to the said company on 26.11.1989,

though the said company was not having the Import

License for importing CFTs at that time. Accused persons

i.e. C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan and

P. Rajendran deliberately overruled the suggestions of

Sh. N.W. Tilak Member (Operations) in placing the said

order on the basis of single budgetary quotations.

4. In furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy,

accused P. Rajendran vide his letter directed M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Company to forward

CC No. 10/15 Page 5 of 154
budgetary quotations regarding the CFTs, which the

company submitted @ Rs. 40,27,627.50 including Custom

and Excise Duty etc. Accused persons, namely, N.K.

Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle &

Engineering Company Ltd. intimated that they would

supply the 56 CFTs within the period of six months from

the date of receipt of Import License and would complete

the supply within a period of one year.

5. As per the chargesheet, the budgetary quotation

obtained from M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co.

Ltd. was not put up before Sh. N.W. Tialk, Member

(Finance), rather it was put up before accused M.S.

Parthasarathy, who directed that negotiation with the

supplier company be held for obtaining a firm price as

there was increase in the price of CFTs from Rs. 26.85

Lacs to Rs. 40.27 Lacs. He also opined for approaching

CC No. 10/15 Page 6 of 154
the Public Investment Board as well as the Cabinet as the

Planning Commission would not agree for lumpsum

purchase. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Member

(Operations) who further marked it to Sh. P. Rajendran,

Director (Equipment). Certain queries were raised by Sh.

N.W. Tilak Member (Operations) who mentioned that the

proposal needed to be dovetailed and marked the file to

Sh. M.K. Ganeshan Member (Finance) who was on tour at

the relevant time. Therefore, the file has been dealt by Sh.

M.S. Parthasarathy. But, Sh. M.S. Parthasarathy instead

of acting as per the Note of Sh. N.W. Tilak for dovetailing

the proposal, marked the file to Sh. M.K. Ganeshan,

Member (Finance) vide his Note dated 05.12.1989, after

holding a meeting with the accused P. Rajenderan, N.K.

Bhartiya and A.K. Bharitya. Accused M.S. Parthasarathy

also roped in Sh. J. Sreedharan Deputy Director (Finance

and Accounts), dishonestly, in order to complete the

CC No. 10/15 Page 7 of 154
quorum of three Representatives of National Airport

Authority of India. In the Note dated 05.12.1989 accused

M.S. Parthasarathy has mentioned that M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicle & Engineering Company Ltd. has revised the

price to Rs. 31,67,500/ per unit including Excise Duty and

excluding Sales Tax.

6. As per the negotiations held, on 12.12.1989, M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicle & Engineering Company Ltd. represented by N.K.

Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya agreed on the price of

Rs. 31.20 Lacs per unit for supply of 56 CFTs. But, Sh.

N.W. Tilak, Member (Operations) who had reservations

about the quantity of CFTs had put up the Note that new

procurement of CFTs needed to be restricted to not more

than 36 numbers and the points raised by him needed

final decision before negotiations were undertaken. But,

in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, the objections raised

CC No. 10/15 Page 8 of 154
by Sh. N.W. Tilak were overruled by accused M.S.

Parthasarathy. Accused M.S. Parthasarathy

recommended that the order be placed on M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicle Engineering & Company Ltd. for 56 CFTs. His

Note was approved by accused M.K. Ganeshan with

dishonest intention to cause pecuniary advantage to the

supplier Company. On 15.12.1989 accused P. Rajendran

issued confirmation for placing the supply order to M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicle Engineering & Company Ltd. for supply

of 56 numbers of CFTs @ Rs. 31.20 Lacs per unit.

Thereafter, on 26.12.1989 a supply order for a total price

of Rs. 17.47 Crores i.e. @ Rs. 31.20 Lacs per unit was

placed on the said company for supplying 56 numbers of

CFTs. On the very next day i.e. on 27.12.1989 payment

of Rs. 1,74,72,000/ in advance was made to the

company as cost of 10% of the total amount of contract.

Also, the condition mentioned by accused M.S.

CC No. 10/15 Page 9 of 154
Parthasarathy in his Note dated 05.12.1989 that 10% as

advance would be made after procurement of Import

License by the supplier company was not included in the

supply order.

7. As per the chargesheet, the order for supplying the CFTs

placed upon the supplier Company was without the

approval of the Chairman and the Ministry of Civil Aviation

was also not involved in the process. Nor the technical

evaluation or financial approval was obtained prior to

placement of supply order of 56 CFTs.

8. The Import License for import of 12 CFTs was received on

21.03.1990 by M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle Engineering &

Company Ltd. and it supplied the said number of CFTs by

16.11.1990. The outstanding numbers of CFTs were

supplied by 24.01.1992 by the supplier company after

CC No. 10/15 Page 10 of 154
receiving the Import License for importing 51 CFTs on

20.01.1991. No efforts were made to realize the liquidity

damages from the supplier Company as mentioned in the

Clause of the supply order. Accused C.K.S. Raje

Chairman, NAAI did not levy the liquidated damages on

the 44 CFTs which were not supplied within time, which

has caused a loss of about Rs. 89.7 Lacs to National

Airport Authority of India. In pursuance of the said

criminal conspiracy, payment of Rs. 39,23,300/ was

made to the supplier company as an advance, though the

supplier company was not entitled to such an advance.

Nor National Airport Authority of India had any obligation

to make the said payment. As per the Note of Govt.

Audit Officer, there was no requirement of procuring CFTs

as National Airport Authority of India had 30 surplus CFTs.

The supply order was placed without calling the tenders,

thereby restricting the generation of competition and

CC No. 10/15 Page 11 of 154
reasonableness of the rates.

9. It is also alleged that accused C.K.S. Raje after his

retirement in May,1992 from National Airport Authority of

India, was appointed as Director of M/s. Archana Airways.

The said Airlines was owned by accused N.K. Bhartiya

and A.K. Bhartiya who are involved in the present criminal

conspiracy along with other accused persons.

10.As per the prosecution case, the accused persons in

conspiracy with each other deliberately over projected the

requirement of CFTs to the tune of 56, thereby causing

pecuniary gain to the supplier company, owned by

accused N.K. Bhartiya and accused A.K. Bhartiya, by

releasing advances which were not due to their company.

11.After completion of the investigation chargesheet was

CC No. 10/15 Page 12 of 154
filed against the accused persons, namely (1) C.K.S.

Raje, ExChairman National Airport Authority of India, (2)

M.S. Parthasarathy ExExecutive Director National Airport

Authority of India, (3) M.K. Ganeshan, ExMember

(Finance) National Airport Authority of India, (4) P.

Rajendran Director (Equipment) National Airport Authority

of India, (5) N.K. Bhartiya Joint Managing Director of M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd. and (6) A.K.

Bhartiya Chairman and Managing Director of M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd. for the offences

punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act

and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act.

12.After filing of the chargesheet, the accused A.K. Bhartiya

died. The proceedings against him stood abated on

29.09.1997.

CC No. 10/15 Page 13 of 154
13.On 14.02.2003, charge against the accused persons

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran,

M.K. Ganeshan and N.K. Bharatiya was framed for the

offences punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section

13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Additional

charge against the accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje,

M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan

was framed for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w

Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges

and claimed trial.

14.As per order sheet dated 29.09.2010 accused C.K.S.

Raje was reported to be dead and the proceedings

against him stood abated on 14.12.2010.

15.After framing of the Charge, accused M.S. Parthasarathy

CC No. 10/15 Page 14 of 154
also died. As per order sheet dated 04.12.2006 the

proceedings against accused M.S. Parthasarathy stood

abated.

16.The prosecution in order to prove its case against the

accused persons, examined 21 witnesses.

Evidence of Prosecution

17. Sh. Sandeep Kalra was examined as PW1. He has

deposed that in the year 1989, he was working as

Electrical Mechanical Officer in the office of Airport

Authority of India. During the relevant period he was

working in Directorate of Equipment and was attached to

the Director (Equipment). He has deposed that Sh. P.

Rajendran, Director (Equipment), had processed the

proposal for procurement of 56 numbers of CFTs in

National Airport Authority of India (NAAI) on 07.08.1989

CC No. 10/15 Page 15 of 154
vide his Note Ex. PW2/1. The required budgetary

information was put up by Sh. L.C. Gupta, Deputy Director

(Equipment) vide his Note Ex. PW1/G. The said

proposal was seen by the then Chairman of Airport

Authority Sh. C.K.S. Raje. On the direction of Sh. P.

Rajendran Director (Equipment), PW1 Sh. Sandeep Kalra

had prepared the Draft Proposal of supply order to be

placed on supplier company. Director (Equipment) had

put the Draft Proposal before the competent authority for

financial approval.

18.PW1 has further deposed that Ex. PW1/A (colly.)

pertains to procurement and commissioning of 56

numbers of major CFTs network planning for the project

management. Ex. PW1/B (colly.) pertains to Crash Fire

Tender. Ex. PW1/C (colly.) pertains to Stage Inspection

Procedure for 56 numbers of CFTs. Ex. PW1/D (colly.)

CC No. 10/15 Page 16 of 154
pertains to supply of 56 numbers of CFTs. Ex. PW1/E

(colly.), and Ex. PW1/F (colly.) pertain to procurement of

56 numbers of CFTs. Ex. PW1/H pertains to 8 th Plan

Proposals on CFTs56 numbers, which was handled by

him (PW1) .

19. He has also deposed that Sh. M.S.G.K. Warrier the then

O.S.D. (Coordination), had issued Ex. PW3/A for making

assessment of new CFTs required to be purchased during

the next six years as desired by the Chairman so that the

same could be intimated to the Director General Technical

Development and Manufacturers. The same was marked

to Director (Equipment).

20.PW1 has further deposed that the Note in Ex. PW2/15

was prepared by Deputy Director (Finance), containing

observations made by Legal Cell relating to the Draft

CC No. 10/15 Page 17 of 154
Supply Order prepared by him (PW1). Ex. PW2/17 also

contains a Note written by PW1 relating to the

preparation of fresh Draft Supply Order as per the

directions given to him (PW1) by the Director

(Equipment). The file Ex. PW1/I which has been

handled by him (PW1) contains the office copy of supply

order Ex. PW1/J, prepared by PW1. The said supply

order was placed on 26.12.1989 and in the said supply

order there was a provision for making the advance

payment to the supplier to the tune of 10% of the supply

order. Ex. PW2/2 to Ex. PW2/4 signed by Sh. P.

Rajendran Director (Equipments) contain detailed

proposal for procurement of 56 CFTs for total value of Rs.

23,40,50,264/ @ Rs. 41,79,469/ per unit including 10%

Central Sales Tax.

21.As per the advice of Finance Department, if the supply

CC No. 10/15 Page 18 of 154
order exceeds the amount of Rs. Ten Crores, then there

was the requirement of framing a Memorandum for Public

Investment Board for getting approval of supply order. Ex.

PW2/5 is about observations made by Finance

Department on the proposal of procurement of 56 CFTs

prepared by Director (Equipments), requiring the approval

of the Public Investment Board as the cost of the Scheme

was more than Rs. 20 Crores.

22.Sh. Sartaj Singh Taj Retired General Manager Airport

Authority was examined as PW2. In the year 1986 he

was the Deputy Director (Equipment) in the Directorate of

Equipment of National Airport Authority of India. He has

deposed that as per the category of airport, the number of

CFTs and their capacity was provided as per annexure of

International Civil Aviation Organization Regulation. M/s.

Bharatiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. used to deal

CC No. 10/15 Page 19 of 154
with Fire Fighting Vehicles and Crash Fire Tenders

(CFTs). The Note Sheets Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/22

were prepared in official course of business, bearing his

(PW2) signature and the signatures of P. Rajenderan,

Member (Operation) Sh. Tilak, Chairman Sh. C.K.S. Raje,

Sh. M.S. Parthasarthy, Sh. M.K. Ganeshan and Sh.

Sandeep Kalra.

23.He stated that the CBI had made inquiries from him but

his statement was not recorded by the CBI in his

presence. He deposed that he does not know what was

written by the CBI in pursuance of the inquiries made from

him. He stated that he must have attended the meeting

held on 18.12.1991. Excise Duty is paid to the Custom

Department for import of equipment. He stated that the

payment for the CFTs was made in Indian Currency. He

deposed that the defect in any vehicle is ordinarily

CC No. 10/15 Page 20 of 154
repaired and the vehicle continues to work. He deposed

that 56 CFTs in question were still in use till date.

24.He stated that the Inspection Reports Ex. PW2/24 and

PW2/25 bear his signatures and the said inspections

were conducted by him. He identified the signatures of

accused P. Rajendran on Ex. PW2/26. He identified his

signature/initials on Ex. PW2/27 to Ex. PW2/68.

25.This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld.

Prosecutor for the CBI. In his crossexamination by the

Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI, he stated that portion J to J1

of his statement Ex. PW2/23 dated 11.03.1992 was not

correct.

26.Sh. M.S.G.K. Warrier was examined as PW3. At the

relevant time, he was working as Officer on Special Duty

CC No. 10/15 Page 21 of 154
(Coordination) with Air Marshal C.K.S. Raje, Chairman,

National Airport Authority. His duty was to coordinate

various functions of Chairman's Secretariat / Directorate

with other departments and officers of National Airport

Authority of India. He has deposed that Sh. P. Rajendran

Director (Equipment), vide his Noting dated 07.08.1989 on

Ex. PW2/1 related to plan proposal of procurement of

Crash Fire Tenders during Eighth Five Year Plan, had put

up a proposal for procurement of 56 numbers of CFTs (40

new and 16 replacement).

27.He has also stated that Director General Technical

Development had approved two indigenous sources for

supplying CFTs namely M/s. Ashoka Leyland and M/s.

Bhartiya Heavy Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. The

prototype developed and made available by M/s. Ashok

Leyland could not meet the specifications / parameters

CC No. 10/15 Page 22 of 154
regarding operation. The Technical Committee had

therefore, rejected this prototype CFT.

28.He further deposed that Sh. P. Rajendran vide his Noting

on Ex. PW3/A had informed that the details of plan

proposal of procurement of CFTs during Eighth Five Year

Plan had already been submitted to the Member

(Operations) and finally endorsed that total requirement

projected was 56 numbers of CFTs, out of which 40 were

new and 16 were for replacement. Ex. PW3/A bears

signatures of Sh. P. Rajendran as well as of Sh. C.K.S.

Raje.

29.Retired Air Vice Marshal Jaswant Singh Kumar was

examined as PW4. He has stated that during the years

1987 to 1991, he was Director, Mechanical Transport, and

was responsible for provisioning the CFTs. The

CC No. 10/15 Page 23 of 154
consolidated requirements of CFTs were projected to

Ministry of Defence (Supplies) and it was their

responsibility to place orders and to negotiate financial

parameters after satisfaction of technical specifications.

The technical specifications and trial evaluation of CFTs

were processed through Technical Committee which was

under the control of Ministry. He (PW4) was not the

member of this Committee, but was called whenever the

Air Force requirements were to be considered. The CFTs

were to be tested and cleared first by this Committee

before negotiations of the price.

30.He has stated that M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering

Company Ltd. used to import the chasis of Crash Fire

Tenders make "TATRA" and after fabrication of the super

structure, it used to supply the same to the Air Force.

CC No. 10/15 Page 24 of 154
31.He has deposed that in the year 198586 there was no

CFT manufacturer in India. There were offers from three

companies for sale of CFTs, namely, Bhartiya for sale of

TATRA CFTs from Czechoslovakia, Mercedez Benz from

Germany and Ashok Leyland. He has stated that as per

his memory Mercedez Benz had pulled out or could not

meet the requirement. The Technical Committee had

recommended purchase of CFTs from M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd., Mercedeez Benz and

Ashok Leyland subject to successful completion of trials.

The CFTs of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd.

had successfully met the requirement during the trial.

Ashok Leyland could not meet the requirements.

32.PW4 further stated that during those days Govt. of India

was not having sufficient foreign currency and M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. had agreed to

CC No. 10/15 Page 25 of 154
supply the CFTs on payment of Indian currency.

33.Sh. S. Murali was examined as PW5. He has deposed

that he had worked with M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Company Limited for about two years as

Trainee Engineer. Sh. P. Rajendran, who was working in

Directorate General of Civil Aviation, is his distant relative.

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Company Limited

used to manufacture Crash Fire Tenders which were

supplied to Air Force, Airport Authorities and Oil

Companies. He got the appointment with NAAI as

Assistant Electrical and Mechanical Officer and was

posted at Mangalore. At the time of interview Mr.

Rajendran and some other persons were members of the

Interview Board. He does not know the members of the

Interview Board except Mr. Rajendran. At the time of his

interview, Mr. Rajendran was not present in the Interview

CC No. 10/15 Page 26 of 154
Board and he left the interview room after he (PW5)

entered the interview room. The other members of the

Board conducted his interview for his appointment in the

National Airport Authority of India.

34.Sh. Raju Dureha was examined as PW6. He has

deposed that during the relevant period, he was working

in the National Airports Authority on deputation. Later, in

the year 1991, he was absorbed in the service of National

Airports Authority of India and till 1995 he remained

posted as Deputy Executive Assistant to Chairman of

National Airports Authority of India i.e. Air Marshal C.K.S.

Raje. He worked with C.K.S. Raje from 1986 till the

retirement of C.K.S. Raje. At that time Sh. B.K. Batish

was the Executive Assistant with Sh. C.K.S. Raje. He has

further deposed that he used to deal with the official

correspondence of the Chairman's Secretariat. Mr. Batish

CC No. 10/15 Page 27 of 154
used to deal with the personal requirements of the

Chairman apart from dealing with the official

correspondence. He stated that signature at point A on

Ex. PW6/1 appears to be that of C.K.S. Raje, but he was

not sure in this regard. He stated that signature at point B

on Ex. PW6/1 appears to be that of P.Rajendran, but he

was not sure in this regard.

35.Sh. J. Sridharan was examined as PW7. In the year

1989, he was posted as Deputy Director (Finance) in the

National Airports Authority of India. He had attended the

meeting held under the approval of Member (Operations)

and the Chairman C.K.S. Raje on 04.12.1989, between

National Airports Authority of India and M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles and Engineering Co. Ltd. for supplying of Crash

Fire Tenders. The said meeting was also attended by P.

Rajendran Director (Equipment). Sh. M.S. Parthasarthy

CC No. 10/15 Page 28 of 154
Executive Director (Finance and Accounts) had chaired

the said meeting. However, initially the said meeting

was to be chaired by Air Vice Marshal N.W. Tilak Member

(Operations). The minutes of meeting held on 04.12.1989

are Ex. PW7/A. He has further deposed that meeting

held on 04.12.1989 was an exploratory negotiation and

the final negotiation took place at R.K. Puram on

12.12.1989, wherein the terms and conditions, technical

specification and price of the proposed order were

finalized. The minutes of meeting held on 12.12.1989 are

Ex. PW7/2.

36.PW7 has further deposed that prior to the meeting dated

12.12.1989, an internal meeting was also held between

Sh. M.K. Ganeshan Member (Finance) and Sh. N.W. Tilak

Member (Operations), wherein, he (PW7) was also

present. In the said meeting Sh. N.W. Tilak Member

CC No. 10/15 Page 29 of 154
(Operations) had some reservation regarding the number

of Crash Fire Tenders to be purchased. He has deposed

that order was to be placed for 56 Crash Fire Tenders, but

Sh. N.W. Tilak Member (Operations) wanted lesser

number of Crash Fire Tenders to be purchased.

However, as per the Safety Report there was requirement

of 56 Crash Fire Tenders, as proposed by Director

(Equipment). He has further stated that Ex. PW7/3 is a

Note which was put up for administrative approval and

expenditure sanction for procurement of 56 numbers of

Crash Fire Tenders. PW7 has further deposed that

National Airports Authority of India was a Schedule 'A'

Company, formed in 1986 and in 1989 the balance sheets

for the previous years were pending. At that time, the

Ministry of Civil Aviation used to prescribe the capital of

the company. In the year 1989 the Chairman of National

Airports Authority of India had powers to approve

CC No. 10/15 Page 30 of 154
investments to the tune of Rs. 20 Crores. He has stated

that interoffice Note Ex. PW7/4 bears initials of Sh. P.

Rajendran Director (Equipment) and interoffice Note Ex.

PW7/5 bearing his (PW7) signatures was sent to the

Director (Equipment) asking for details.

37.Sh. Sushil Kumar was examined as PW8. He has

deposed that he had joined the Ministry of Industry in

1971 as Assistant Development Officer. After the year

1982, his duties included advising the Government on

various developing policies in relation to the technical

aspects. Those who wanted to set up manufacturing

industries had to register themselves with Director

General Technical Development (DGTD). He has stated

that Mark PW8/1 is the photocopy of the list of items

permitted to be imported by M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Company Ltd. Mark PW8/2 is the

CC No. 10/15 Page 31 of 154
photocopy of the import license.

38.PW8 was crossexamined by the Ld. P.P. for CBI. During

his crossexamination on behalf of CBI, he has deposed

that during the relevant time, as per the policy the

issuance of registration letter by DGTD on the application

of a party, does not constitute acceptance of the

conditions specified by the applicant in its application.

39.Sh. L.C. Gupta was examined as PW9. He has

deposed that from 1989 to 1996, he was posted in the

Electrical & Mechanical Workshop at Safdarjung Airport

as Deputy Director (Equipment). In the year 1983, he

was posted as Deputy Director (Equipment) at the

workshop at Safdarjung Airport and then he was

transferred to the Headquarters in the year 1984. He

remained at the DGCA (Headquarters) till his transfer to

CC No. 10/15 Page 32 of 154
the workshop in year 1989. His duties included

monitoring the Petrol and Oil lubricants received from the

Aerodromes of the Company and other duties as

assigned by the Director (Equipment). During the period

from year 1984 to 1989, team of Technical Officer,

Electrical Officer, Assistant Director (Equipment), Deputy

Director (Equipment) and Director used to monitor the

maintenance of vehicles and Crash Fire Tenders. He

had never dealt directly with the purchase of Crash Fire

Tenders. During the period from year 1984 to 1989

threefour types of CFTs were working at the Aerodromes

i.e. Rosenbauer, Tatra, Nissan and some other small

Crash Fire Tenders.

40.PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta has further deposed that

Rosenbeauer was the latest induction and its performance

was as per the required standards of International Civil

CC No. 10/15 Page 33 of 154
Aviation Organization. Tatra, Nissan and other small

Crash Fire Tenders were old models, therefore, the

department was in the process of replacement of old

models of CFTs as they were not giving adequate

performance. He has further stated that during the period

from year 1984 to 1989, Ministry of Defence Department

of Defence Supplies and Ministry of Civil Aviation had

jointly purchased the Crash Fire Tenders as both the

Ministries were using the same kind of CFTs. He does

not know the exact process which used to be followed for

replacement of the old Crash Fire Tenders. Nor he

remembers as to what decision was taken by the

Government regarding replacement of the CFTs in Eighth

Five Year Plan. He has deposed that M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Company Ltd. was the Indian

Agent of Tatra Czechoslovakia and had supplied the

Crash Fire Tenders in year 1982. But, he does not know

CC No. 10/15 Page 34 of 154
as to who were involved in the said process. He does not

remember the exact number of CFTs decided to be

replaced in the year 1989.

41.PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta has further stated that on the asking

of Director (Equipment), he had put up a Note i.e. plan

projection bearing his signatures at point A on Ex. PW

1/G. As per deposition of PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta, his Note

Ex. PW1/DA i.e. a draft provision was prepared and

forwarded to the Directorate of Finance and Accounts as

each Directorate was asked to furnish the requirements of

its budget because at that time Directorate of Finance and

Accounts used to coordinate the finances of all the

departments of DGCA. He has further stated that the

clearance of DGTD was required for import of CFTs in

India as the required level of CFTs was not available. He

does not know whether the DGTD clearance was taken or

CC No. 10/15 Page 35 of 154
not in this case for import of CFTs as he was not dealing

with the import of CFTs.

42.PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta has further deposed that he had

written letter dated 29.11.1990 Ex. PW9/1 to M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Company (P) Ltd.,

thereby, requesting it to attend the break down of Tatra -

T 815 supplied by it at Baroda. He had also sent Letter

dated 16.11.1989 which is Mark PW9/A to the authorities

of the Aerodromes regarding the details of rusting and

corrosion of Tatra CFTs supplied prior to year 1989. He

has further stated that letter dated 19.12.1990 which is

Ex. PW9/2 bearing his signatures, in the capacity of

Deputy Director (Equipment) at E&M Workshop, was sent

to the Directorate of Equipment on receipt of signal from

the Airport Director Trivendrum. Copy of the signal

received from Trivendrum which was addressed to him

CC No. 10/15 Page 36 of 154
(PW9) is Mark PW9/B. He has further deposed that

letter Ex. PW9/3 bears signature of Sh. P.Rajendran

Director (Equipment) at point A. The Director (Equipment)

would have marked this letter with the EMO at point B.

43.PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta has further stated that he does not

know anything about letter Mark PW9/C as he was not

dealing with the procurement of Crash Fire Tenders.

However, they have been procuring the Crash Fire

Tenders through various agencies i.e. DGS&D,

Department of Defence Supplies etc. which have their

own inspection wing. Vide Ex. PW9/4, he had requested

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Company Limited

not to delay the delivery of the first lot of CFTs. Vide letter

Ex. PW9/5 sent by him, he had informed M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Company Ltd. about the delay in

supply of the Tatra Crash Fire Tenders. He has further

CC No. 10/15 Page 37 of 154
stated that he had sent a letter to the Executive Director

Delhi Region to give detail regarding the team to receive,

inspection and delivery of the CFTs. Copy of the same

was endorsed to the Directorate of Equipment. The said

letter Ex. PW9/6.

44.Air Vice Marshal H.M. Shahul was examined as PW10.

In October 1996, he was posted as the Chairman of the

Airport Authority of India. Vide Sanction Order Ex. PW

10/A, he had accorded the Sanction for prosecution

against Sh. P. Rajendran Director (Equipment) National

Airport Authority of India. Before according Sanction for

prosecution, he had taken due consideration of all the

documents submitted by the CBI. He has stated that

Chairman Airport Authority of India was the competent

authority to remove Sh. P. Rajendran from service.

CC No. 10/15 Page 38 of 154
45.Sh. N.W. Tilak was examined as PW11. He has

deposed that in the year 1989 he was posted in the

National Airport Authority as Member (Operations). His

duties included the supervision of Air activities of all

airports under the command of National Airport Authority

of India. During that period, Air Marshal C.K.S. Raje was

the Chairman and Head of the National Airport Authority.

The Chairman of National Airport Authority had the

decisive powers for purchase of Crash Fire Tenders. He

has stated that the duty of the Director (Equipment) was

to supervise the entire equipment of the National Airport

Authority. He does not remember as to who was posted

as Director (Equipment) in year 1989. He has further

stated that the purchase of CFTs was ordinarily to be

made on the basis of recommendations made by the

Member (Operations). In the final meeting held by the

Member (Finance) during the time of negotiations, he

CC No. 10/15 Page 39 of 154
(PW11) had given his dissent for the recommendations

being discussed. The Director (Equipment) made the

recommendations directly to the Chairman by bypassing

him (PW11). He does not remember as to how many

Crash Fire Tenders were required in the year 1989. He

stated that on Ex. PW2/1 entire handwriting from points

X1 to Z and at Z1 is his (PW11). Ex. PW2/1 also bears

his signature at point B and the signatures of Sh. C.K.S.

Raje and Sh. P. Rajendran at points C and A,

respectively. The Note at portions Z to Z1 on page 6 of

Ex. PW1/I is in his handwriting.

46.PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak further deposed that the

assessment of requirement of CFTs was to be processed

through the Director (Equipment) to the Member

(Operations) with the final authority of the Chairman of the

National Airport Authority of India. The Note Ex. PW2/11

CC No. 10/15 Page 40 of 154
in Ex. PW1/I from portions Z to Z1 is in his handwriting

and bears his signatures at point B. He was not involved

in the purchase of 56 CFTs, except his dissenting Note

Ex. PW2/11 in Ex. PW1/I. He does not know as to why

he was not taken into confidence at the time of purchase

of 56 CFTs. Ex. PW2/21 in Ex. PW1/I contains the

signature of Sh. Parthasarathy Director (Finance) at point

D and his signatures at point B. The portions from Z to Z1

on Note Ex. PW11/1 is in his handwriting. Note Ex.

PW7/2 at page 97 of D2 bears signatures of Sh. M.K.

Ganeshan Member (Finance), Sh. Parthasarthy Director

(Finance), Sh. P. Rajendran Director (Equipment) and his

signatures at points A,C,D and B respectively. He is

unable to identify the signatures of Sh. Sridharan at point

E on Note Ex. PW7/2. He has stated that the CBI had

made inquiries from him and his statement was recorded

by the CBI. He has further stated that his dissent was

CC No. 10/15 Page 41 of 154
regarding the number of CFTs to be purchased as his

estimation of the requirement was lesser than what was

projected in the meeting held by the Member (Finance).

He has further deposed that the final meeting in the

ordinary course should have been called by the Member

(Operations) in which the Member (Finance) would have

been invited for negotiations on the price of the CFTs to

be purchased. Whereas, in the present case the meeting

was called by the Member (Finance) wherein, he (PW11)

Member (Operations) was invited. He does not remember

the opinion of the DGCA given at the time of inspection for

requirement of CFTs. He had taken the plan of

requirement of CFTs in view of the commitments

undertaken by the National Airport Authority of India and

as per his estimation lesser numbers of CFTs were

required.

CC No. 10/15 Page 42 of 154
47.Sh. Udyan Sen was examined as PW12. During the

period 198990, PW12 Sh. Udyan Sen was posted as

Development Officer (Engineering) with Ministry of

Industry. In Directorate General of Technical

Development, his duties were to control the purchase and

the import of technical items in order to encourage the

indigenous production. The Directorate General of

Technical Development used to assist for issuing

necessary licenses for the purpose of heavy engineering

items for production in India. The Crash Fire Tenders

were used by Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation

Industries in India. He has stated that M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicle & Engineering Company Ltd., M/s. Ashok Leyland

and M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. were earmarked by the

Directorate General of Technical Development as

indigenous source for procurement of Crash Fire Tenders.

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Company Ltd. used

CC No. 10/15 Page 43 of 154
to import the chassis along with its components from

Czechoslovakia and used to fabricate the superstructure

in its factory. M/s. Ashok Leyland had developed its own

chassis and the superstructure used to be fabricated by

other indigenous sources i.e. at Mathura and Bombay.

The Crash Fire Tenders produced by M/s. Ashok Leyland

and M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. were approved by the

Vehicle Research Development Establishment, Pune.

But, the Crash Fire Tenders of these two companies were

to undergo users trial, due to the flaws found in the

products of these two companies, by the users. He has

further deposed that the Technical Committee had found

some flaws in the CFTs of M/s. Ashok Leyland and M/s.

Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. However the Technical

Committee had no objection regarding the CFTs which

were ordered to be purchased from M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles

& Engineering Company Ltd.

CC No. 10/15 Page 44 of 154

48.PW12 Sh. Udyan Sen has deposed that letter Ex. PW

12/A had been written by him to Air Marshal C.K.S. Raje

for assessing the immediate requirement of Crash Fire

Tenders of National Airport Authority. Vide letter Ex. PW

12/B, Sh. Udyan Sen had asked Air Marshal C.K.S. Raje

to attend the meeting regarding the requirements of Crash

Fire Tenders. Vide letter Ex. PW12/C, Sh. Udyan Sen

had intimated Air Marshal C.K.S. Raje about the yearwise

breakup of requirement of CFTs and the yearwise funds

allocation. He has further stated that letter Ex. PW12/D

was written by Sh. P. Rajendran to him giving reference

to a letter dated 13.10.1989 written by National Airport

Authority of India to him (PW12). The observations of

Indian Air Force and National Airport Authority of India in

respect of CFTs of M/s. Ashok Leyland were not known to

him. Nor he remembers the observations made by

CC No. 10/15 Page 45 of 154
Technical Committee regarding the CFTs of M/s. Ashok

Leyland. The number of CFTs to be purchased from M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Company Ltd. as

recorded in the documents of the Directorate General of

Technical Development, is correct. He has stated that the

technical suitability of the CFTs was to the satisfaction of

the users of CFTs and the Technical Committee. The

Directorate General of Technical Development had no role

in this.

49.Sh. S.K. Peshin Retired S.P., CBI was examined as PW

13. He was the Investigating Officer of this case. He

stated that this case against the accused persons was

registered on 09.12.1991 under the signature of Sh. R.K.

Dutta the then S.P. The copy of the FIR is Ex. PW13/A.

In October 1994, the investigation of the case was

entrusted to him by the then S.P. He has further deposed

CC No. 10/15 Page 46 of 154
that initially Sh. D.C. Sorari SP, ACB, CBI, was the

Investigating Officer of this case. During the investigation

conducted by Sh. D.C. Sorari, he had recorded the

statements of the witnesses and has collected the

documents from the various authorities. PW13 Sh. S.K.

Peshin had collected the statements recorded by Sh. D.C.

Sorari and the documents collected by him from

Malkhana. He had also recorded the statements of

witnesses viz. S/Sh. R.K. Mittal, Raju Dureja, V.S. Galgali

and Shridharan. He had obtained the Sanction for

prosecution of accused P. Rajendran from the competent

Authority and had filed the Chargesheet Ex. PW13/B

before the Court. At the time of filing of the Charge

sheet, accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje, M.K.

Ganeshan and M.S. Parthasarathy had already retired

from the service.

CC No. 10/15 Page 47 of 154
50.Sh. R.K. Mittal Company Secretary of M/s. Archana

Airways was examined as PW14. He has stated that

from the year 1987 to 1993, he was working as Company

Secretary in M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering

Company Ltd. From the year 1993 to 2000, he worked as

Company Secretary in M/s. Archana Airways Ltd. Since

the year 2000, he had been working with M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Company Ltd. He has deposed

that accused A.K. Bhartiya was the Chairman of M/s.

Archana Airways Ltd. and accused N.K. Bhartiya was the

Managing Director in M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Company Ltd. He is aware about the

commercial working of both the companies. Vide Ex. PW

14/A, Air Marshal C.K.S. Raje was appointed as Executive

Director in M/s. Archana Airways Ltd. Ex. PW14/B are

the Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors of M/s.

Archana Airways Ltd. S/Sh. A.K. Bhartiya, N.K. Bharitya,

CC No. 10/15 Page 48 of 154
C.K.S. Raje, Air Marshal J.K. Seth, Vice Admiral S.C.

Chopra, Vijay Shroff and M.P. Rajan were the Directors of

M/s. Archana Airways Ltd.

51.PW14 Sh. R.K. Mittal has further deposed that M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles and Engineering Company Ltd. was

engaged in the manufacturing of Crash Fire Tenders and

used to supply about 80% to 90% of Crash Fire Tenders

to National Airport Authority of India and to Defence

Ministry.

52.PW14 Sh. R.K.Mittal was crossexamined by the Ld. P.P.

for CBI as he had resiled from his statement recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During his crossexamination

by the Ld. P.P. for CBI, he has stated that he does not

remember whether C.K.S. Raje was the Chairman of

National Airport Authority of India before joining M/s.

CC No. 10/15 Page 49 of 154
Archana Airways Ltd. He has stated that he and C.K.S.

Raje used to attend the Board Meeting of M/s. Archana

Airways Ltd. He had worked as Company Secretary of

M/s. Archana Airways Ltd. during the period when C.K.S.

Raje was one of the Director of M/s. Archana Airways Ltd.

He has denied the suggestion of Ld. P.P. for CBI that

during this period, he came to know about C.K.S. Raje

being the Chairman of National Airport Authority of India

prior to his joining M/s. Archana Airways Ltd., as Director.

He denied that he had seen the biodata of C.K.S. Raje

before he joined the Company as Executive Director.

53.Sh. D.C. Sorari was examined as PW15. He was the

first Investigating Officer of the case. Investigation of this

case was entrusted to him in the year 1989. During the

investigation, he had examined witnesses and collected

documents pertaining to this case vide Seizure Memo Ex.

CC No. 10/15 Page 50 of 154
PW15/1. He had seized the said documents from Sh.

P.C. Bhat Vigilance Officer, Directorate General of

Technical Development, Udyog Bhawan, Delhi. Vide Ex.

PW15/2, he had seized five files from Administration

Office of Director (Equipment), National Airport Authority

of India, New Delhi. Vide Ex. PW15/3, Sh. P.C. Bhat,

Vigilance Officer, DGTD provided certain files to the CBI

during the investigation of this case. Thereafter, the case

was transferred from him for further investigation to

another Investigating Officer.

54.Sqn. Leader Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma was examined as

PW16. During the period from October 1990 to

November 1993, he was posted as Sqn. Leader in

Directorate of Mechanical Transport, Air Headquarters,

R.K. Puram, Delhi. He remained Officiating Deputy

Director for some time and Group Captain J.S. Kumar was

CC No. 10/15 Page 51 of 154
the Director. He has stated that the technical evaluation

and trial of Crash Fire Tenders is conducted by a Joint

Team consisting of Air Force, National Airport Authority of

India at Ahmed Nagar and Vehicle Research and

Development Establishment. He was the member of

Technical Committee for one trial and technical evaluation

of CFTs in the year 1991 or 1992. After the trial the

Technical Committee recommended the CFTs

manufactured by M/s. Ashok Leyland. The CFTs of M/s.

Tatra were already in use. One CFT of M/s. Ashok

Leyland was under field trial by the Indian Air Force Unit.

55. Sh. M.C. Kishore was examined as PW17. He had

joined the National Airport Authority of India as Company

Secretary in the year 1987. He has deposed that on

16.08.1990 the Financial Power of the Board of Directors

of the National Airport Authority of India for Capital

CC No. 10/15 Page 52 of 154
Expenditure was enhanced to Rs. Twenty Crores. When

Board of Directors of National Airport Authority of India

was not in existence, the Power of the Board vested with

the concerned Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of

India. In the absence of Board of Directors of National

Airport Authority of India, the Chairman has to take

approval of Ministry of Civil Aviation in order to exercise

the financial powers. He has further stated that in the

year 1989, Board of Directors of National Airport Authority

of India was not in existence and it was reconstituted in

July, 1990. The matter for ratification for procurement of

56 CFTs was put up second time in the 34 th Meeting of the

Board. He has stated that certified copies of the Minutes

of the meeting of the Board of Directors of National

Airport Authority Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW17/B deal with

the procurement of CFTs.

CC No. 10/15 Page 53 of 154
56. Air Cmde. T.R. Bhola (Retired) was examined as PW

18. He has deposed that from January 1990 to July

1994, he was posted as Assistant Director in Directorate

of Air Traffic Services, Air Head Quarters, Indian Air

Force. During his tenure, he was looking after the

operational aspects of CFTs. The technical evaluation of

the CFT was done by Directorate of Mechanical

Transport. During this period, a CFT which was a

prototype, made by M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Limited was

given for evaluation. The chassis of the said CFT was

TATRA and the super structure was outsourced by M/s.

Bharat Earth Movers Limited from some other company.

In the said prototype CFT, there were technical and

operational defects which have been conveyed to the

manufacturer by the concerned Directorate.

57. Sh. M. Pran Konchady Additional Controller General of

CC No. 10/15 Page 54 of 154
Accounts (CGA) was examined as PW19. He has stated

that in the year 1993 he was posted as Financial

Controller in Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of

India. Vide letter Mark PW19/A, he had sent photocopy

of extract of Report No. 3/1993 of CAG of India i.e. Mark

PW19/B and PW19/B1 to M.K. Ganeshan. The said

extract of Reports were prepared on the basis of CAG

Report which was received from CAG (Comptroller and

Auditor General), New Delhi.

58. Sh. Amlendu Banerjee was examined as PW20. He

has deposed that during the relevant period, he was

Incharge of Fire Services Training Centre, National Airport

Authority of India, Kolkata. He along with P. Rajendran

Director (Equipment), M. Subba Rao Deputy Director

(Equipment), M. Shashi Electric & Mechanical Officer,

M.L. Singh Assistant Fire Officer, Mr. Verma Assistant

CC No. 10/15 Page 55 of 154
Electrical and Mechanical Officer had gone to

Czechoslovakia in July, 1989 on official tour of two weeks

for getting training in Operation and Maintenance of Crash

Fire Tenders. Sh. N.K. Bhartiya Proprietor of M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Company Limited and Sh.

Umesh Chand Works Manager had also accompanied

them. All of them have stayed in the same hotel in

Czechoslovakia. Sh. N.K. Bhartiya and Sh. P. Rajendran

had parted from them one day prior to their scheduled

departure from Czechoslovakia and thereafter they met

them at Frankfort Airport, from where all of them came

back to India. He has further stated that in the year 1989,

they had only one Roserbauer CFT at the training Center.

In the year 1991 they had CFT from TATRA as well. But,

they had no CFT of M/s. Ashoka Leyland with them.

59. Sh. M. Subba Rao was examined as PW21. He has

CC No. 10/15 Page 56 of 154
stated that in the year 1989 he was posted as Deputy

Director (Equipment) in National Airport Authority of India,

Calcutta. He was the Incharge of the maintenance of the

Fire Fighting Equipments and other vehicles in the

Eastern Region. He had gone to Czechoslovakia for two

weeks training along with P. Rajendran Director

(Equipment) NAAI, A. Banerjee Senior Fire Officer, Mr.

Verma and Mr. Shashi. One partner of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Company Ltd. had also traveled in

the same flight to Czechoslovakia. Their training was to

get acquainted with the newly introduced TATRA T815

CFT and also to enable them to maintain the equipment to

perform the required task. He has stated that no CFT was

required at Calcutta Airport and no CFT of M/s. Ashok

Leyland was available in National Airport Authority of

India, Calcutta.

CC No. 10/15 Page 57 of 154
60.PW21 Sh. M. Subba Rao was crossexamined by the Ld.

P.P. for CBI as he had resiled from his statement

recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During his crossexamination

conducted by the Ld. P.P. for CBI, he has denied that Sh.

N.K. Bhartiya had stayed with them in the same hotel or

was with them during the training. However, he admitted

that Mr. N.K. Bhartiya and Umesh Chandra had traveled

with them in the same flight.

Statements of Accused Persons recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.

61.After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements

of the accused persons, namely, P. Rajendran, M.K.

Ganeshan and N.K. Bhartiya u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were

recorded.

62.Accused P. Rajendran filed written statement u/s 313

Cr.P.C., wherein, accused P. Rajendran has stated that

CC No. 10/15 Page 58 of 154
he is innocent and has been wrongly chargesheeted in

the present case. The case against him was made out

due to personal enmities and he has been framed by the

officials who do not know anything on the subject of Fire

and Rescue Service in Airport or ICAO Manuals. The

requirement of CFTs were reassessed based on the

directions of Chairman Sh. C.K.S. Raje as conveyed by

his OSD Sh. Warrier vide Note dated 08.08.1989. The

same was in compliance with ICAO Guidelines. He has

stated that his superior Officer Sh. N.W. Tilak Member

(Operations) had instructed him on telephone to put up

the Report i.e. Assessment of requirement of CFTs before

the Chairman. The said assessment of CFTs was done

by Sh. L.C. Gupta Deputy Director (Equipment).

Accordingly, he had obtained the Report from Sh. L.C.

Gupta and sent it to Sh. N.W. Tilak on 07.08.1989 with a

Note including the points which he (P. Rajendran)

CC No. 10/15 Page 59 of 154
considered relevant sensing the interest and urgency

expressed by Mr. N.W. Tilak and accused Chairman

C.K.S. Raje. Sh. N.W. Tilak forwarded the said Note to

Mr. C.K.S. Raje on 07.08.1989 itself with his recordings.

Accused P. Rajendran has stated that it was not a

proposal for procurement as stated by PW Sh. Sandeep

Kalra. Rather, it was the assessment of requirement of

CFTs for Eighth Plan. He has stated that the Supply

Order was placed in accordance with the Terms and

Conditions as agreed by the Competent Authority and as

per the draft vetted and approved by Finance and Legal

Cell.

63.Accused P. Rajendran has stated in his statement u/s 313

Cr.P.C. that Sh. S.S. Taj was the leader of the inspection

team with regard to the performance and standard

specifications of the CFTs. All the issues arising out of

CC No. 10/15 Page 60 of 154
the inspections were to be sorted out in consultation with

Sh. N.W. Tilak. He has stated that the meeting on

18.12.1991 was held by accused Chairman C.K.S. Raje

for the purpose of granting special advance to the

Suppliers and he (P. Rajendran) was not associated with

it. Sh. N.W. Tilak was associated with the said proposal.

He had acted on the proposal on innumerable occasions

where he was evasive, avoiding to play his role and

renounced his authority to Sh. Parthasarathy and M.K.

Ganeshan.

64.Accused P. Rajendran has stated in his statement u/s 313

Cr.P.C. that the negotiation team of Mr. N.W. Tilak and

accused M.K. Ganeshan had finalized the quantity, cost,

time of purchase and other terms and conditions of the

purchase of the CFTs. The Minutes of this meeting were

prepared by the Finance Department. DGTD clearance

CC No. 10/15 Page 61 of 154
was must for import of CFTs at the relevant time. TATRA

and Rosen Bauer CFTs were due for replacement as they

had outlived their operational life and were not meeting

the performance parameters as per ICAO Guidelines.

65.Accused P.Rajendran has further stated in his statement

u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that National Airport Authority had also

initiated departmental inquiry against him regarding the

same allegations and he has been exonerated of all the

charges vide the Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer.

The real culprits have not been made accused by the CBI.

The officers of National Airport Authority of India, namely

Sh. L.C. Gupta, Sh. N.W. Tilak and Sh. J. Sreedharan

should have been made the accused in the present case,

instead of making them the prosecution witnesses.

Investigation of the case conducted by the CBI is not

proper. In his defence, he examined one witness.

CC No. 10/15 Page 62 of 154
66.Accused M.K. Ganeshan filed his written statement u/s

313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he has stated that the case filed by

the CBI against him is without any basis. From the

statements of the prosecution witnesses it cannot be

made out that there was any conspiracy or the

commission of any offence. The CBI has filed the charge

sheet without any diligence and by suppressing the

relevant documents. The records pertaining to National

Airport Authority of India clearly indicate that due process

has been followed for procurement of CFTs. The CFTs

were purchased with the knowledge and consent of

Ministry of Civil Aviation and Ministry of Finance.

67.Accused M.K. Ganeshan has further stated in his

statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the requirement of 56

CFTs was recommended after detailed working by Sh.

CC No. 10/15 Page 63 of 154
N.W. Tilak Member (Operations). Sh. N.W. Tilak had

participated in the final negotiations with M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd. for procurement of 56

CFTs and in the subsequent processing of the same.

Sh. N.W. Tilak has not been able to substantiate the

requirement of only 36 CFTs and no documentation or

rationale has been provided by him in this regard. The

successor of Sh. N.W. Tilak had increased the

requirement of CFTs to 44 which was not approved by

him (M.K. Ganeshan). The entire payment of 56 CFTs

was made in Indian currency. Air Force had added 7

CFTs to be purchased on their behalf, subject to approval

of Ministry of Defence. Advance payment made to M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Company Ltd. was as

per the terms and conditions of supply Order and was

backed by bank guarantee.

CC No. 10/15 Page 64 of 154
68.Accused M.K. Ganeshan has further stated in his

statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of execution of

the contract, he had even asked for imposing liquidated

damages and cancellation of the contract. The Ministry

of Civil Aviation in consultation with Ministry of Finance

had advised that no Public Investment Board approval

was required. Accused M.K. Ganeshan has not led any

evidence in defence.

69.Accused N.K. Bhartiya in his statement recorded u/s 313

Cr.P.C. has stated that he is innocent and has been

falsely implicated in this case. The case is false and

fabricated one. There is no incriminating evidence against

him. The prosecution witnesses have not specifically

deposed against him. The CBI officials who have

deposed as prosecution witnesses are interested

witnesses and they have deposed falsely against him for

CC No. 10/15 Page 65 of 154
the success of their case. CBI had registered this case on

the false complaint of Sh. N.W. Tilak, Member

(Operations) National Airport Authority of India. Sh. N.W.

Tilak had grievances against the accused C.K.S. Raje the

then Chairman, NAAI, because Sh. C.K.S. Raje had not

extended the tenure of Sh. N.W. Tilak for another two

years. Therefore in order to settle his grievances, Sh.

N.W. Tilak had made the false complaint which led to

initiation of the present case. The company of the

accused has been made scapegoat between the fight of

two senior officers of National Airport Authority of India.

He has stated that Sh. N.W. Tilak had recommended and

approved the induction of 56 Crash Fire Tenders (40 new

and 16 for replacement) on 07.08.1989. Sh. N.W. Tilak

had no objection with the quality of the CFTs supplied by

his (accused N.K. Bharitya) company, rather his objection

was with regard to the number of CFTs.

CC No. 10/15 Page 66 of 154

70.Accused N.K. Bhartiya in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

has further stated that in December 1989 when the

National Airport Authority of India had placed the Order for

supplying the 56 CFTs, at that time there was only the

company of the accused N.K. Bhartiya which was

providing up to the mark CFTs. Company of the accused

N.K. Bhartiya had given heavy discount to National airport

Authority of India for bulk purchase only. During the

negotiation meeting with respect to the purchase of CFTs

from the company of the accused, Indian Air Force had

also requested National Airport Authority of India to

dovetail the requirement of their CFTs, so that Indian Air

Force could also purchase the CFTs on lesser price.

The competent authority of National Airport Authority of

India had accepted the negotiation price/processing fees

as Rs. Two Lacs per CFT. The said price was further

CC No. 10/15 Page 67 of 154
reduced on the insistence of Sh. N.W. Tilak. Granting of

10% advance was approved by the legal department and

at that time it was the common practice in all contracts to

safeguard the initial cost of the supplier. The said 10%

advance was fully secured against the bank guarantee of

equal amount. The advance payment of the Excise Duty

was given for a short period and at a higher interest rate.

This advance amount of Excise Duty was not paid to the

company of accused N.K. Bhartiya, but the same was

directly paid to the Excise Department. He has examined

two witnesses in his defence.

71.In defence, three witnesses in total were examined by the

accused persons.

Evidence led by the accused persons

72.Sh. Anil Kumar Rai Joint General Manager (HR) Airports

CC No. 10/15 Page 68 of 154
Authority of India was examined as DW1 on behalf of

accused P. Rajendran. He has produced some

documents. He has stated that in year 1998 he was

working in the Vigilance Department of Airports Authority

of India. He has brought the originals of Ex. DW1/A i.e.

attested copy of Inquiry Report dated 23.07.1997. Ex.

DW1/B are the attested copies of the statements of

witnesses, namely, Sh. C.K.S. Raje, Sh. N.W. Tilak and

Sh. M.K. Ganeshan, made before the Inquiry Officer. Ex.

DW1/C is the attested copy of Order dated 18.10.2001

issued by Sh. D.V. Gupta the then Chairman/DA.

73.Sh. Sandeep Wahal Vice President (Sales) M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles and Engineering Co. Ltd. was examined as DW

2 on behalf of accused N.K. Bhartiya. He has deposed

that during the period 19871989, he was working as

Private Secretary and OSD to the then Chairman cum

CC No. 10/15 Page 69 of 154
Managing Director i.e. accused Late A.K. Bhartiya who

used to deal with the commercial transactions. At that

time accused N.K. Bhartiya used to supervise the

workshop of the company. During the said period Director

General Technical Development, Ministry of Industry had

approved two indigenous sources for CFTs. One was

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. and other

was M/s. Ashok Leyland. The letter dated 27.03.1985

regarding the same is Ex. DW2/I. In September 1985,

vide supply order dated 06.09.1985 Ex. DW2/H, Ministry

of Defence, Govt. of India had placed the orders before

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. and M/s.

Ashok Leyland for supplying the CFTs subject to

approval of prototype sample. Vide letter dated

28.01.1987 Ex. DW2/G, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of

India had approved the prototype developed by M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. Vide letter

CC No. 10/15 Page 70 of 154
dated 08.08.1989 Ex. DW2/A, Govt. of India through

Controller of Quality had communicated the fact that

prototype of M/s. Ashok Leyland may require at least 12

months for users trial. He has further deposed that during

the years 1987 to 1989 M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. had supplied 95 CFTs to various

users including National Airport Authority of India through

Ministry of Defence. All the contracts prior and after the

contract of National Airport Authority have the provision of

guarantee mobilization advance of 10% or more, against

100% bank guarantee of nationalized bank. The copies of

various contracts entered into between M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. and other Govt. agencies

for supplying the required numbers of CFTs are Ex. DW

2/B to Ex. DW2/F.

74.DW2 Sh. Sandeep Wahal has further stated that M/s.

CC No. 10/15 Page 71 of 154
Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. had supplied 14

CFTs to Indian Air Force at a higher price in comparison

to the CFTs supplied to National Airport Authority of India,

because of the bulk supply order given by National Airport

Authority of India. DW2 Sh. Sandeep Wahal had

attended three meetings on behalf of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. with the Negotiation

Committee formed by National Airport Authority of India

for purchasing 56 CFTs. The National Airport Authority of

India had paid the Excise Duty directly to Excise

Department through draft of Rs. 30 lacs for one day for

the movement of vehicles from the factory premises to the

premises of National Airport Authority of India . For that

National Airport Authority of India had charged interest @

31%.

75.Sh. S.K. Verma was examined as DW3 on behalf of

CC No. 10/15 Page 72 of 154
accused N.K. Bhartiya. In the year 198990, he was

posted as Assistant Electrical & Mechanical Officer,

Central Workshop at Safdarjung Airport,Delhi. He has

stated that to meet the ICAO 1984 Guidelines, a process

for assessment of requirement of CFTs was initiated in the

year 198788 and a Committee under Sh. L.C. Gupta the

then Dy. Director, NAAI, was formed in this regard. He

(DW3) was also associated with the Report Ex. PW1/G

is regarding the phasing out of the old CFTs and for

inducting the new CFTs. The requirement of 56 CFTs

was genuine requirement and the details regarding the

same were made after inspecting and assessing the

requirements at various Airports. He has stated that Ex.

PW13/DX1 are the ICAO Guidelines 1984 and the

operational life of CFTs as per said Guidelines at that time

was about 7 to 10 years. He has also been associated

with the user's trial and training schedule of the CFTs. He

CC No. 10/15 Page 73 of 154
was also associated with the trial of TATRA T815 CFTs,

manufactured by M/s. TATRA at Czechoslovakia. The

CFTs of TATRA make had passed the user's trial and

were inducted. He has stated that CFTs of M/s. Ashok

Leyland failed to clear the user's trial. He has further

stated that 56 CFTs were supplied by M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. Prior to that 51 CFTs

had been purchased from M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. The CFTs of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles

& Engineering Co. Ltd. were having automatic

transmission and higher capacity of water and foam etc.

There was no technical problem in the said CFTs. He

has deposed that Ex. PW2/1 pertains to procurement of

56 CFTs and bear signatures of S/Sh. N.W. Tilak, P.

Rajendran and Mr. Raje. Since the year 198889 only

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. supplied

the CFTs to Airport Authority. The CFTs of M/s. Ashok

CC No. 10/15 Page 74 of 154
Leyland were never inducted in National Airport Authority

of India for user's trial or for induction. He has further

stated that CPWD Manual has the provision of paying

10% to 15% advance on high value contracts and in the

present case also advance of 10% to 15% was given.

76.I have heard the Sh. A.K. Kushwaha Ld. P.P. for CBI, Sh.

Ashish Agarwal and Sh. Adit S. Pujari Ld. Counsels for

accused P. Rajendran and accused M.K. Ganeshan. I

have also heard Sh. P.K. Sharma and Sh. D.K. Sharma

Ld. Counsels for accused N.K. Bhartiya. I have perused

the file and the case law relied upon by the CBI and the

defence counsels.

Arguments of the Ld. P.P. for CBI.

77.The Ld. P.P. for CBI submitted that accused persons,

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan

CC No. 10/15 Page 75 of 154
and P. Rajendran with the Directors of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. namely, accused A.K.

Bhartiya and accused N.K. Bhartiya, hatched a criminal

conspiracy with each other. This was so done by C.K.S.

Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan and P.

Rajendran with an intention to obtain pecuniary advantage

for themselves and also to give financial benefits to

accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya

of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. Thereby,

accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan and P. Rajendran have

caused financial loss to Govt. of India in the matter of

purchase of 56 Crash Fire Tenders.

78. The Ld. P.P. submitted that at the relevant time, accused

C.K.S. Raje who was the Chairman of National Airport

Authority of India had misused his official position by

CC No. 10/15 Page 76 of 154
conniving with accused M.S. Parthasarathy Executive

Director, National Airport Authority of India, M.K.

Ganeshan Member (Finance) and accused P. Rajendran

Director (Equipment) National Airport Authority of India, by

processing the file in the matter of purchase of 56 CFTs

and placing the supply order to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. @ Rs. 29.11 Lacs per CFT. It was

argued that accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan and P. Rajendran have

ignored the objections raised by Sh. N.W. Tilak Member

(Operations) regarding the quantity of the Crash Fire

Tenders to be purchased. It was argued that accused P.

Rajendran had placed overprojected demand of Crash

Fire Tenders and the same was not based on the

assessment of the actual requirement.

79.It was submitted that there was no requirement of 56

CC No. 10/15 Page 77 of 154
CFTs. The statement of PW11 N.W. Tilak clearly proves

that this requirement of 56 CFTs was overprojected and

purchase of 56 CFTs have caused financial loss to the

Govt. of India.

80. It was submitted by the Ld. P.P. for CBI that the supply

order was placed on M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. without calling tenders with an

intention to rule out the competition. The said supply

order was placed on single budgetary quotation in order to

extend financial benefit to the accused persons, namely

N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya. The accused persons,

namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan

and P. Rajendran had entered into a criminal conspiracy

and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they

have caused wrongful loss to the Govt. of India and

wrongful gain to themselves and to accused persons,

CC No. 10/15 Page 78 of 154
namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya.

81.Ld. P.P. for CBI contended that the order for supplying 56

CFTs was given without obtaining the approval of full

Board of Directors of NAAI. It was further submitted that

at the time of placing the said order, 10% advance was

also released to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co.

Ltd. It was submitted that at the time of giving the

advance of Rs. 1,74,72,000/ to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd., the company was not having any

import license to import the CFTs. This advance amount

was released against the terms and conditions of the

supply order. This was so done by the accused persons

in order to obtain wrongful gain for themselves and to

cause wrongful loss to the Govt. of India.

82. It was contended that M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

CC No. 10/15 Page 79 of 154
Engineering Co. Ltd. did not supply the CFTs within the

stipulated period as mentioned in the terms and

conditions of the supply order. As per the terms of

contract / supply order, in case of delay in supplying the

CFTs, M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. was

supposed to pay liquidated damages as stipulated in

Clause 29 of the contract / supply order. But, this Clause

was not invoked by the accused persons, namely C.K.S.

Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan and P.

Rajendran. The said accused persons did not enforce

the Clause 29 of the contract / supply order as there was

conspiracy between said accused persons, namely,

C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, M.K. Ganeshan, P.

Rajendran and accused N.K. Bhartiya and accused A.K.

Bhartiya. This also shows and proves they had hatched

the criminal conspiracy. It was contended that in

furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the delay in

CC No. 10/15 Page 80 of 154
supplying the CFTs was ignored as a result of which

clause 29 of the supply order was not invoked and the

proceedings for recovering liquidity damages as per the

said Clause were not initiated against the said Company.

83.It was further submitted that accused M.S. Parthasarathy

did not consider the proposal of Sh. N.W. Tilak Member

(Operations) to dovetail the proposal and held the

meeting with the Representatives of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. In order to complete the

quorum of three Representatives of National Airport

Authority of India in the said meeting, Sh. J. Sreedharan

Deputy Director (Finance) was called in the meeting held

on 04.12.1989. This proves the conspiracy was hatched

by the accused persons.

84.It was contended by the Ld. P.P. for CBI that in pursuance

CC No. 10/15 Page 81 of 154
of the said criminal conspiracy, accused M.K. Ganeshan

had directed the negotiations with M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles

& Engineering Co. Ltd. be held on the same day, despite

the reservations made by Sh. N.W. Tilak Member

(Operations) regarding the quantity of CFTs to be

purchased. Sh. N.W. Tilak had also indicated that the

points raised by him needed a final decision before

negotiations were undertaken.

85.It was contended by the Ld. P.P. for CBI that accused P.

Rajendran had went along with other officials of NAAI and

accused N.K. Bhartiya to Czechoslovakia in July 1989.

This was an official tour and in pursuance of the criminal

conspiracy accused N.K. Bhartiya had accompanied

accused P. Rajendran to Czechoslovakia and they both

stayed in the same hotel. They both left Czechoslovakia

one day prior to the scheduled departure. This also

CC No. 10/15 Page 82 of 154
proves conspiracy.

86.It was also submitted by the Ld. P.P. for CBI that after his

retirement from NAAI, accused C.K.S. Raje had joined as

Executive Director in M/s. Archana Airways Ltd. which

was owned by accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya

and A.K. Bhartiya. This proves the intimacy between

accused persons, namely C.K.S. Raje and N.K. Bhartiya

and A.K. Bhartiya. This fact also shows that accused

persons were in conspiracy with each other.

87.It was contended that PW10 Air Vice Marshal H.M.

Shahul had accorded the Sanction for prosecution of

accused P. Rajendran after analyzing the material

submitted by the CBI before him for grant of Sanction. It

was contended that the other accused persons, namely

C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy and M.K. Ganeshan had

CC No. 10/15 Page 83 of 154
already retired from service when the chargesheet was

filed and therefore, there was no requirement of Sanction

for their prosecution. It was contended that accused

persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya are not

public servants and therefore, there is no requirement of

Sanction for their prosecution. It was contended by the

Ld. P.P. for CBI that Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is not

required against accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje,

M.S. Parthasarathy and M.K. Ganeshan and P.

Rajendran for the reason that the act of criminal

conspiracy is not covered within the meaning of discharge

of official duty.

88.It was contended that the prosecution witnesses are

consistent and have supported each other on all the

material points. The prosecution witnesses could not be

shaken from their stand during their crossexamination,

CC No. 10/15 Page 84 of 154
therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements

of the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that from

the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the case of

the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable

doubt and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be

convicted for the offences for which they have been

charged.

Arguments on behalf of accused P. Rajendran and

accused M.K. Ganeshan

89.Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons have

submitted that as per the allegation of prosecution all the

accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy with

each other for gaining pecuniary advantage for

themselves. By doing so, accused C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan have

gained pecuniary advantage for themselves and had

CC No. 10/15 Page 85 of 154
given financial benefits to the accused persons, namely,

N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya, who are Directors of M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. It was

submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsels that by

purchasing the required number of CFTs from M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd., National Airport

Authority of India had, in fact, saved huge amount of

foreign exchange of Government of India, as the said

company was an indigenous source. The payment was

made in Indian currency. It was contended that by

placing the supply order with M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd., National Airport Authority of India

saved Rs. 280 Lacs of Government Exchequer as due to

large quantity of supply order and further due to the tactful

negotiations by the officials of NAAI with the said

company, it reduced the price by approximately Rs. Five

Lacs per CFT.

CC No. 10/15 Page 86 of 154
90.It was argued that prosecution has alleged that in the

present case accused persons, namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasaraty, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan being the

public servants have abused their official positions by

corrupt and illegal means. The said accused persons

deliberately overprojected the requirement of CFTs to the

tune of 56 numbers, thereby causing monetary loss to

National Airport Authority, Government of India. Ld.

Defence Counsel has contended that had there been any

criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons for

causing monetary loss to the Government of India, then

the accused persons, namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan would

not have get reduced the price of CFTs by Rs. Five Lacs

per CFT, which has resulted into saving of Rs. 2.8 Crores

of Government of India. Rather, the accused persons

CC No. 10/15 Page 87 of 154
would have distributed the amount of Rs. 2.8 Crores

amongst themselves.

91.Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that there is no

evidence to prove that accused persons had hatched a

criminal conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. Even if

for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that a criminal

conspiracy was hatched amongst the accused persons,

then PW9 Sh.L.C. Gupta, PW2 Sh. S.S. Taj and PW11

N.W. Tilak were also equally involved in the so called

conspiracy, because they were also involved in the

process of procurement of CFTs as they have dealt with

the said file and PW11 N.W. Tilak had approved the

same.

92.It was submitted that the prosecution has alleged that P.

Rajendran had processed the file for purchasing 56 CFTs,

CC No. 10/15 Page 88 of 154
whereby, he had intentionally over projected the demand

of CFTs as the same was not based on the assessment of

actual requirement, rather, on the basis of budgetary

allocation. With regard to the allegation of over projection

of CFTs, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the

prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to prove that

the requirement of CFTs was overprojected. Nor there is

any document or statement of prosecution witnesses

which show that the alleged surplus CFTs were not

utilized. It was contended that for procurement of 56

CFTs (40 new & 16 to be replaced for old), a detail study

was conducted by PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta and on the basis

of his Report the process for purchasing 56 CFTs was

initiated. Thus, the requirement was not overprojected.

It was contended that in compliance of ICAO Guidelines,

1986, the said requirement was must for upgradation of

the airports and also to manage the heavy aircrafts. It

CC No. 10/15 Page 89 of 154
was contended that even PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has

agreed for purchase of 56 CFTs. PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak

has deposed against the accused persons as he was

annoyed with Sh. C.K.S. Raje Chairman, NAAI, as Mr.

Raje did not recommend for the extension of Sh. N.W.

Tilak after his retirement. It was further submitted that

PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak had given his consent and

approved the order for procurement of 56 CFTs after

going through the detailed explanation for purchase of 56

CFTs by Executive Director (Finance).

93.Ld. Defence Counsel has further submitted that the Ld.

P.P. has argued that as per the testimony of PW11 Sh.

N.W. Tilak, there was requirement of 36 CFTs and further

induction of 20 CFTs was not needed as the old CFTs

might have continued further. It was contended that the

said assertion of PW11 N.W. Tilak was contradictory to

CC No. 10/15 Page 90 of 154
the ICAO Guidelines, because as per the said Guidelines,

the life of a CFT is for ten years only. Therefore, the 16

CFTs were to be purchased for replacing the old

Rosenbauer CFTs of the year 1977. It was contended

that this assertion of PW11 N.W. Tilak is also

contradictory to his stand taken by him during the process

of procurement of CFTs. It was further submitted that the

supply order was finalized by PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak on

15.12.1989 as accused C.K.S. Raje, Chairman of National

Airport Authority of India, was on leave w.e.f. 08.12.1989

to 26.12.1989. In the absence of C.K.S. Raje, PW11 Sh.

N.W. Tilak was the Incharge of the Department and was

responsible for the working of NAAI for the said period. It

was submitted that the testimony of PW11 N.W. Tilak

cannot be relied upon under these circumstances and he

has deposed in the Court only in order to take revenge

from C.K.S. Raje who did not agree for giving extension to

CC No. 10/15 Page 91 of 154
N.W. Tilak after his retirement.

94.It was further submitted that as per the ICAO Guidelines

the life of CFT was about ten years. National Airport

Authority of India recommended replacement of 16 CFTs

make Rosenbauer. The said CFTs were inducted in 1977

78 and had already crossed their maximum life span. It

was contended that during the Eighth Five Year Plan,

modernization of aircrafts was scheduled at large scale

which required quick responding CFTs to meet out

emergent situation. Hence, there was no over projection

regarding the number of CFTs to be purchased.

95.It was contended that the prosecution has also alleged

that the global tenders were not invited and the order was

placed on the basis of a single budgetary quotation. It

was submitted that global tender was not invited due to

CC No. 10/15 Page 92 of 154
the embargo put by DGTD on import of CFTs. It was

submitted that vide Ex. DW2/I M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. and M/s. Ashok Leyland were

approved as indigenous source on trial basis. Vide letter

dated 28.01.1987 Ex. DW2/G, DGTD had approved for

supply of CFTs by M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering

Co. Ltd. because the prototype of Ashok Leyland has

failed in user's trial. Therefore, M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle &

Engineering Co. Ltd. was the only source from where the

supply of CFTs could be taken.

96.With regard to the allegation of prosecution qua payment

of advance to the tune of 10% of the amount of the

supply order is concerned, it was contended that the

terms of supply order placed by National Airport Authority

of India upon M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co.

Ltd., included the condition of releasing 10% of the

CC No. 10/15 Page 93 of 154
amount as advance at the time of placing the supply

order. It was not subject to the issuing of the import

license. It was submitted that giving 10% advance was a

uniform policy already existing in all government

departments and PSUs. The said advance of 10% was

fully secured by 100% bank guarantee by a nationalized

bank as per the term of contract. To support his

contention Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to the

statement of DW2 Sandeep Wahal who has deposed that

all the contracts prior as well as later to the contract of

National Airport Authority of India have provisions of

mobilization of 10% or more secured against 100% bank

guarantee of a nationalized bank. M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles

& Engineering Co. Ltd. had also furnished the required

bank guarantee as per the terms and conditions of the

supply order in question awarded by National Airport

Authority of India. The copies of contracts awarded to

CC No. 10/15 Page 94 of 154
M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. by various

Government Agencies the payment clause of advance

against 100% bank guarantee are Ex. DW2/B to Ex. DW

2/F.

97.Regarding payment of 10% advance reliance was also

placed upon by the defence counsels on the testimony of

PW14 Sh. R.K. Mittal Company Secretary of M/s.

Archana Airways Ltd. and M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. who has stated in his cross

examination on behalf of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. that the said company used to take

10% to 15% advance along with the order.

98.To support their versions regarding the payment of 10%

advance, reliance was also placed upon the deposition of

PW15 Sh. D.C. Sorari, the I.O. of the case who has

CC No. 10/15 Page 95 of 154
stated in his crossexamination on behalf of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. that giving 10% of the

contract amount as advance payment was a standard

practice by National Airport Authority of India.

99.With regard to the allegation of noninvocation of liquidity

damages Clause of the supply order on the part of

National Airport Authority of India, Ld. Defence Counsel

has submitted that there was no delay on the part of M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicle Engineering Co. Ltd. in supplying the

CFTs i.e. why the liquidity clause of the contract was not

invoked. It was submitted that the period of limitation

starts after the issuance of the import license which was to

be granted by the Ministry of Commerce and DGTD.

Neither M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. nor

the National Airport Authority of India had any control over

the said authorities. Therefore, the delay in supply of

CC No. 10/15 Page 96 of 154
CFTs was due to nonissuance of the import license by

the concerned authorities. Thus, M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. could not be penalized for the fault of

someone else. In fact, M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. was awarded damages by the

Arbitrator in a claim filed by the said company against

National Airport Authority of India.

100.Ld. Counsel for the accused also submitted that the

advance of Rs. 39,23,300/ was directly paid to the Excise

Department towards excise duty through demand draft for

moving the CFTs out of factory and for delivery of ready

CFTs to National Airport Authority of India. The said

amount of advance was given for one day only and that

too at the interest rate of 31% per day. This advance was

to be adjusted against the final bill. It was contended that

by giving this advance the NAAI has not favoured M/s.

CC No. 10/15 Page 97 of 154
Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Ltd. as this advance

was not paid to the said company, rather it was paid to the

Excise Department. It was also contended that by giving

this advance of Rs.39,23,300/, the NAAI did not suffer

any loss for the reason that it has charged very high rate

of interest on this advance amount given to the Excise

Department.

101.It was further submitted that in the present case the

prosecution against accused P. Rajendran is not

sustainable because accused P. Rajendran was

exonerated in the departmental inquiry on the basis of the

same documentary as well as oral evidence which have

been relied upon in the present case. The order of

exoneration had been finally approved by the competent

authority. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment

reported as 1996(9) SCC 1.

CC No. 10/15 Page 98 of 154

102.Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that due process has

been followed for procuring the CFTs and the records

pertaining to National Airport Authority of India clearly

indicate the same. The CFTs were purchased with the

consent and knowledge of Ministry of Civil Aviation and

Ministry of Finance.

103.Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that the

prosecution has specifically alleged that accused persons,

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan had taken the pecuniary benefit in

furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy. But, no

evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove this

allegation.

104. Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that in the absence

CC No. 10/15 Page 99 of 154
of mandatory Sanction required under 197 Cr.P.C. the

prosecution of said public servants is bad in law, the

alleged offence was committed by them while discharging

their official duties. To support his contention the Ld.

Defence Counsels have relied upon the following

judgments:

i. State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 617 .

ii. N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI (2016) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 143.

iii. Vinod Chandra Semawal Vs. Special Police
Establishment, Ujjain 2015 (8) SCC 383.

iv. R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
(1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 478.

Arguments on behalf of accused N.K. Bhartiya

105.Ld. Counsel for the accused N.K. Bhartiya submitted that

accused N.K. Bhartiya has been charged for the offences

punishable u/s 120 B r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act 1988 in

CC No. 10/15 Page 100 of 154
his individual capacity. It was submitted that as per

chargesheet accused persons namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan have

hatched criminal conspiracy with M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. which is the supplier of CFTs. It

was submitted that no charge has been framed against

the said company. The charge has been framed against

N.K. Bhartiya who was the Director of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. at the relevant time. The

other accused A.K. Bhartiya expired before the framing of

Charge. It was submitted that accused N.K. Bhartiya

cannot be prosecuted in the absence of framing any

charge against the company namely M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. The prosecution of N.K.

Bhartiya is bad in law. To support his contention Ld.

Counsel has relied upon a judgment reported as Aneeta

Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5

CC No. 10/15 Page 101 of 154
Supreme Court Cases 661.

106. It was contended that during the trial of the case,

prosecution has not led any evidence against accused

N.K. Bhartiya to support the charge of conspiracy. Nor

any prosecution witness has supported the charge of

conspiracy against accused N.K. Bhartiya. It was

contended that prosecution has not led any evidence

regarding meeting of minds for doing illegal activity by the

accused persons. There is no direct evidence regarding

conspiracy and the prosecution wants to prove the charge

of conspiracy by circumstantial evidence. It was

contended that the prosecution wants to prove the alleged

conspiracy on the basis of the employment of accused

C.K.S. Raje with M/s. Archana Airways Ltd. which was

owned by N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya. It was

submitted that this employment of accused C.K.S. Raje in

CC No. 10/15 Page 102 of 154
M/s. Archana Airways Ltd. was subsequent to the present

case. To prove conspiracy the meeting of minds is

required prior to the hatching of conspiracy. Therefore,

the employment of accused C.K.S. Raje with M/s.

Archana Airways Ltd. does not prove in any manner that a

conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons.

107.It was submitted that the prosecution also wants to prove

the charge of conspiracy on the basis of the official tour

on which the officials of National Airport Authority of India

went to Czechoslovakia along with the accused N.K.

Bhartiya and Umesh Chand the Manager of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. Ld. Defence Counsel

submitted that in this regard PW20 Sh. Amlendu

Banerjee has specifically stated that he along with P.

Rajendran, M. Subba Rao, M. Shashi, M.L. Singh and Mr.

Verma went to Czechoslovakia on an official tour for

CC No. 10/15 Page 103 of 154
getting training in Operation and Maintenance of CFTs.

There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that any

of the accused person had connived with accused N.K.

Bhartiya while they had gone to Czechoslovakia on an

official tour. It was contended that this tour was organized

by NAAI for the training of its officers and this was not a

private tour.

108.Nor there is any cogent evidence on record to show that

any of the accused person has taken the pecuniary

advantage in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy. It

was submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the

accused persons have derived the financial benefit by

placing the order of purchase of 56 CFTs with M/s.

Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. No witness has

deposed that the accused persons had obtained any

pecuniary advantage out of this contract of purchasing the

CC No. 10/15 Page 104 of 154
56 CFTs from M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co.

Ltd. The I.O. has not deposed that how much loss was

caused to the Government and how much financial benefit

was derived by the accused persons out of this deal. No

evidence has been led by the prosecution that the CFTs

were purchased at a higher rate from M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. or that the CFTs were

available from some other supplier or source at a lesser

rate. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that

the accused persons have gained financial advantage out

of this deal or that they have caused loss to the State

Exchequer by purchasing the CFTs from M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. Therefore, prosecution

has failed to prove any misconduct on the part of the

accused persons.

109.It was contended that as per prosecution case, the

CC No. 10/15 Page 105 of 154
accused persons have committed criminal misconduct by

giving 10% advance to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. The said advance was given as per

the terms and conditions of the purchase order. It was

submitted that there is general practice of giving 10%

advance and even more than 10%, to the supplier. In this

regard statements of DW2 Sh. Sandeep Wahal and PW

14 Sh. R.K. Mittal have been referred to, who have

deposed regarding the practice of giving 10% advance to

the supplier.

110.It was submitted that even the I.O. of the case i.e. PW

15 Sh. D.C. Sorari, in his crossexamination on behalf of

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. has stated

that giving 10% of the contract amount as advance

payment was a standard practice of National Airport

Authority of India.

CC No. 10/15 Page 106 of 154

111.It was contended that the advance of Rs. 39,23,300/

was not paid to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co.

Ltd. This amount was paid directly to the Excise

Department for taking the CFTs out of the factory and for

the delivery of ready CFTs to National Airport Authority. It

was submitted that no loss was caused to the department

by this advance given to Excise Department as interest

was charged @ 31% per day. The rate of interest

charged on this advance is very high rate of interest and

thus the Government has earned considerable profit by

giving this advance to the Excise Department. So, there is

no question of causing any loss to the Government by

giving advance of Rs. 39,23,300/ to the Excise

Department.

112. It was submitted that there was no delay on the part of

CC No. 10/15 Page 107 of 154
M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. for supply

of CFTs. It was submitted that for importing the CFTs, an

import license is required which is issued by the

Government of India. After obtaining the said license from

the Government of India, the company has supplied the

CFTs within the stipulated period. Therefore, there is no

delay in supplying the CFTs. It was submitted that the

delay if any, was not within the control of M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. as the import license was

to be issued by the Government and the said company

did not have any control in the matter regarding issuance

of the import license.

113.It has been alleged by the prosecution that the

requirement of CFTs was overprojected by accused P.

Rajendran. In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel has

submitted that there is no evidence in respect of the

CC No. 10/15 Page 108 of 154
allegation that purchase of 56 CFTs was overprojected.

No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove this

fact. The prosecution is relying upon the statement of

PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak that he had given the dissenting

Note that there was no requirement of 56 CFTs. It was

contended that no evidence has been led by the

prosecution that 36 CFTs were actually required or that 20

CFTs were lying unutilized. It was submitted that even

the Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence

that CFTs were lying unutilized. It was also contended

that the prosecution is relying upon the statements of PW

9 Sh. L.C. Gupta and PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak. It was

submitted that PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta has made a Note for

the purchase of 56 CFTs and PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has

ordered process of the purchase of 56 CFTs. Therefore,

the statements of PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta and Sh. N.W.

Tilak cannot be relied upon.

CC No. 10/15 Page 109 of 154

114.It was contended that the prosecution of accused

persons, namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P.

Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan u/s 120B is bad in law for

want of Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. The accused N.K.

Bhartiya has been charged for the offence of Conspiracy.

Therefore, as the prosecution of accused persons,

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan u/s 120B is bad in law for want of

Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C., therefore, the accused N.K.

Bhartiya alone cannot be prosecuted for the offence of

conspiracy.

Conclusion

115.The first allegation against the accused persons namely,

C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parathasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K.

Ganeshan is that the requirement of 56 CFTs was over

CC No. 10/15 Page 110 of 154
projected. On the other hand, the case of the accused

persons is that the said requirement of CFTs was not

overprojected. It was argued by the defence counsels

that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove

that the requirement of 56 CFTs was overprojected.

116.The prosecution has examined PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta in

order to prove the allegation of overprojection of the

requirement of CFTs. He has prepared the Report

showing the requirement of CFTs during the Eighth Five

Year Plan. This Report is based on three scenarios i.e.

Rs. 1000 Crores, Rs. 800 Crores and Rs. 600 Crores. As

per Rs. 1000 Crores scenario, 56 number of CFTs were

required. As per Rs. 800 Crores scenario, 40 number of

CFTs were required and as per Rs. 600 Crores scenario,

32 number of CFTs were required. This Report prepared

by PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta is Ex. PW1/G.

CC No. 10/15 Page 111 of 154

117.The prosecution has also examined PW11 Sh. N.W.

Tilak in order to prove the allegation of overprojection of

the requirement of CFTs. At the relevant time, PW11 Sh.

N.W. Tilak was Member (Operations) of National Airport

Authority of India. During the crossexamination of PW9

Sh. L.C. Gupta, he has stated that the planning provision

and maintenance of CFTs was done by Directorate of

Equipment and he also stated that 'Planning' includes the

requirement of number of CFTs. PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta

has further stated that the Director (Equipment) used to

report to the Member (Operations) who was Mr. N.W.

Tilak at the relevant time. Therefore, it is clear from the

statement of PW9 Sh. L.C. Gupta that ultimate authority

to decide the number of CFTs required was PW11 Sh.

N.W. Tilak.

CC No. 10/15 Page 112 of 154
118.The prosecution has also relied upon the statement of

PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak. The case of the prosecution is that

though PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak was the competent authority

to decide the number of CFTs which were required to be

purchased, has given his dissent for purchasing 56

number of CFTs. PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has stated that

the purchase was ordinarily to be made on the basis of

the recommendations by Member (Operations). The

recommendations were put by the Director (Equipment)

directly to the Chairman by bypassing him (PW11 Sh.

N.W. Tilak). PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has also stated that

he did not remember as to how many CFTs were required

in the year 1989.

119.PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has also stated that he was

having no role at the time of purchase of 56 number of

CFTs, except his dissenting Note Ex. PW2/11 on Ex.

CC No. 10/15 Page 113 of 154
PW1/1.

120.PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak in his crossexamination has

stated that Note Ex. PW11/2 does not mention about any

dissent by him. He has also stated that he does not

remember whether he has made any enquiry from the

Director (Equipment) as to how he arrived at the

requirement of 56 CFTs.

121.Note Ex. PW11/2 (in D1) has been written by PW11

Sh. N.W. Tilak and the same reads as under:

"This has reference to your query this morning.
Requirement for 8th plan period is 56 - 40 for new
induction and 16 for replacements."
sd/
07/08/89

122.PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has further stated that Note Ex.

CC No. 10/15 Page 114 of 154
PW11/2 was a quick response to the Chairman's query

without physically verifying the requirement of CFTs by

visiting the aerodromes. He has further stated that his

Note dated 15.11.1989 Ex. PW2/6 is correct.

123.As per the deposition of PW2 Sh. S.S. Taj the

documents Ex. PW2/1 to PW2/22 bear the signatures of

PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak Member (Operations) at points B.

As per Noting of PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak from point Z5 to

Z6 on Ex. PW2/13, he had marked the file to Director

(Equipment) for processing. His Noting reads as under:

"May pl process"
sd/
15.XII.89

124.The above Noting of PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak shows that

he himself has ordered the process of the purchase of 56

CFTs on 15.12.1989. The case of the prosecution is that

CC No. 10/15 Page 115 of 154
PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has given his dissenting Note. The

perusal of this dissenting Note Ex. PW2/11 shows that

this was given by him on 14.12.1989. Thus, it is clear

that despite giving of dissenting Note by him on

14.12.1989, PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak has subsequently

ordered the process of purchase of 56 CFTs on

15.12.1989. Thus, the dissenting Note given by PW11

Sh. N.W. Tilak has no significance as the same was over

ruled subsequently by himself (PW11 Sh. N.W. Tilak)

when he ordered the process of purchase of 56 CFTs.

125.It has come in the evidence of PW11 N.W. Tilak that he

has not inquired from the accused P. Rajendran as to how

P. Rajendran has arrived at the figure of 56 CFTs. It is

also important to note that on 07.08.1989, PW11 Sh.

N.W. Tilak has also given the Note that there was

requirement of 56 CFTs including the replacement. No

CC No. 10/15 Page 116 of 154
evidence has been led as to how the PW11 Sh. N.W.

Tilak was not in agreement for the purchase of 56 number

of CFTs, whereas at the initial stage, he has also agreed

for purchase of 56 CFTs.

126.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the testimony

of PW11 N.W. Tilak is not of much value for the

prosecution for proving the allegation that the requirement

of 56 CFTs was overprojected.

127.It is also important to note that another prosecution

witness PW7 Sh. J. Sreedharan has also stated that as

per Safety Report, there was requirement of 56 CFTs.

128.In this case, it was the duty of the I.O. to investigate

regarding the number of CFTs which were actually

required by the National Airport Authority of India.

CC No. 10/15 Page 117 of 154
Investigating Officer has not collected any cogent

evidence in this regard. No evidence has been led by the

prosecution to show that 56 CFTs were not actually

required or that some CFTs were in excess or that some

CFTs were lying unutilized. I.O. PW13 Sh. S.K. Peshin

has stated in his crossexamination that he did not visit

the airports to assess the excess purchase of CFTs. He

also stated that he did not enquire from the concerned

authorities at different airports about any surplus CFTs.

Meaning thereby, the I.O. did not investigate the matter as

to whether there was requirement of 56 CFTs or not, at

the relevant time.

129.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to

prove the allegation that the accused persons have

deliberately overprojected the requirement of 56 CFTs.

CC No. 10/15 Page 118 of 154

130.The next allegation against the accused persons is that

the CFTs were purchased by not obtaining the approval of

full time Board of National Airport Authority of India.

131.To prove this allegation, the prosecution has examined

PW17 Sh. M.C. Kishore who was Company Secretary in

National Airport Authority of India at the relevant time. He

has stated that in the year 19891990 the financial powers

of the Board of Directors of National Airport Authority of

India for Capital Expenditure was Rs. 20 Crores. This

financial powers of the Board was enhanced to Rs. 20

Crores on 16.08.1990 and prior to this, this financial

power of the Directors of National Airport Authority of India

for capital expenditure was Rs. 10 Crores. The order was

placed for purchasing 56 CFTs in December, 1989.

Therefore, as per the statement of PW17 Sh. M.C.

CC No. 10/15 Page 119 of 154
Kishore, it is clear that at the relevant time, the financial

power of the Board of Directors of NAAI was Rs. 10

Crores.

132.PW17 Sh. M.C. Kishore has also stated that in the year

1999 when the order was placed for purchase of 56 CFTs,

the Board of Directors of NAAI was not in existence and it

was reconstituted in July 1990. He has also stated that

when the Board of Directors of National Airport Authority

of India was not in existence, the powers of the Board

vested with the concerned Ministry of Civil Aviation. He

has also deposed that if Chairman exercises the financial

powers of Board of Directors, he has to take approval of

Ministry of Civil Aviation.

133.Admittedly, in the present case no approval was

obtained from the Board of Directors for purchasing 56

CC No. 10/15 Page 120 of 154
CFTs and admittedly the price of the CFTs was more than

Rs. Ten Crores. It is also admitted that the Board of

Directors of NAAI was not in existence at the relevant

time. Thus, the financial power to purchase CFTs was

exercised by the Chairman of National Airport Authority of

India and at the relevant time, the Chairman was Sh.

C.K.S. Raje. As per the statement of PW17 Sh. M.C.

Kishore, in such a situation, the approval had to be taken

from the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is also admitted fact

that no approval was taken from the Ministry of Civil

Aviation for purchasing 56 CFTs. It has also come in the

statement of PW17 Sh. M.C. Kishore that at the relevant

time, the financial power of the Board of Directors was

Rs. 10 Crores, whereas, the purchase in the present case

was of more than Rs. 10 Crores. PW17 Sh. M.C.

Kishore has not been crossexamined on these points.

His testimony in this regard has remained uncontroverted

CC No. 10/15 Page 121 of 154
and unchallenged, therefore, the same has to be

accepted as not disputed. Reliance in this regard can be

placed upon the judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

reported as State Vs. Mohd. Afzal & Ors. 2003VII

AD(Delhi)1, wherein, it was held that when a witness is

not crossexamined on any relevant aspect, the

correctness of the statement made by the witness cannot

be disputed.

134.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is proved

that the accused persons, namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P.Rajendran and M.K.Ganeshan did not

obtain the approval of the Board of Directors of National

Airport Authority of India for purchasing the CFTs and this

approval was mandatory in the present case. Approval of

Ministry of Civil Aviation was also not taken. Therefore, it

is proved that the CFTs were purchased by not following

CC No. 10/15 Page 122 of 154
the due process.

135.The next allegation against the accused persons,

namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan is that they have placed supply order

on the basis of single budgetary quotation and without

calling tenders, as a result of which generation of

competition was restricted.

136.The prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to

prove this allegation. Nor any evidence has been led to

show that there was requirement for calling tenders. On

the other hand, PW4 Retired Air Vice Marshal Sh. J.S.

Kumar has stated that there were offers from three

companies for supply of CFTs. The said companies were

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd., Mercedes

Benz of Germany and Ashok Leyland. He stated that to

CC No. 10/15 Page 123 of 154
the best of his memory Mercedes Benz either pulled out

or could not meet the requirement. He stated that Ashok

Leyland has given a prototype trial, but it could not meet

the requirement of performance specifications. He stated

that during these days M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. had already been inducted and had

successfully met the requirement of completion of trial.

Thus, from the statement of PW4 Sh. J.S. Kumar, it is

rather established that at that time M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles

& Engineering Co. Ltd. was the only supplier of CFTs.

Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of the

considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove

that the accused persons, namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan had

placed supply order on the basis of single budgetary

quotation and without inviting the tenders.

CC No. 10/15 Page 124 of 154
137.The next allegation against the accused persons C.K.S.

Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K.

Ganeshan is that an advance of Rs. 1,74,72,000/ was

paid to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd.

This amount was paid to the said company much before

the procurement of import license by it.

138.It is an admitted fact that on the day of giving the amount

of Rs. 1,74,72,000/ as advance money to M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd., the said company was

not having any import license to import the CFTs. This

advance amount was paid to the company on the next

day of placing of supply order upon the said company.

Therefore, on the day when the advance money was paid

to the company, it was not in a position to import the

CFTs.

CC No. 10/15 Page 125 of 154
139.The case of the accused persons is that the advance of

Rs. 1,74,72,000/ was paid as per the terms and

conditions of the supply order Ex. PW15/D1. The perusal

of Ex. PW15/D1 shows that there is Clause 22 in the said

supply order, as per which an advance of 10% was to be

paid after the placement of order. Though this Clause

empowers the National Airport Authority of India to

release the advance of 10% after placing the supply

order. But, there is nothing on record to show that for

what purpose the said advance was given on the very

next day of placing the supply order despite the fact that

M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. was not

having any import license nor the company was in a

position to import and supply the CFTs on the date of

giving the advance of 10%.

140.There is no explanation as to why the Clause 22 in Ex.

CC No. 10/15 Page 126 of 154
PW15/D1 was inserted in the supply order by ignoring the

fact that advance was being paid for supply of CFTs by

the company and on that day the company was not in a

position to supply the CFTs as it was not having any

import license to import the CFTs. Admittedly accused

C.K.S. Raje was Chairman of National Airport Authority of

India at the relevant time. Meaning thereby, this Clause

was inserted with his consent and knowledge. Had the

conduct of accused C.K.S. Raje and coaccused persons,

namely, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K.

Ganeshan been fair, this Clause would not have been

inserted in the manner in which it has been inserted. If

advance was to be paid to the company, it should have

been paid after the grant of import license to the said

company. Therefore, it is clear that the Clause 22 in Ex.

PW15/D1 was intentionally inserted in the supply order in

order to give huge amount of money to M/s. Bhartiya

CC No. 10/15 Page 127 of 154
Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. immediately after placing

the supply order with the sole motive to extend financial

benefit to the said company.

141.Any prudent man would not think of giving such a huge

amount to any supplier by way of advance money

especially under the circumstances when the supplier has

no license to import the machinery for which it has been

given such a huge amount of money as advance. There

is nothing on record to show that M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. was entitled to the grant of import

license as a matter of right. It all depended upon the

Government Authorities whether to grant any such

license to any company / supplier. Therefore, under these

circumstances, the advance money if any was to be paid,

it should have been paid after the grant of import license

to the said company.

CC No. 10/15 Page 128 of 154

142.Attention of the Court was drawn to the statements of

defence witnesses, namely DW2 Sh. Sandeep Wahal

and DW3 Sh. S.K. Verma who have deposed that there

had been practice of giving 10% advance money to the

supplier. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the

statement of I.O. PW15 Sh. D.C. Sorari who has also

stated that as per the terms and conditions of the supply

order there was a stipulation of giving 10% of the contract

amount as advance money to the supplier. In my

considered opinion, neither the statement of Investigating

Officer PW15 Sh. D.C. Sorari nor the statements of DW2

Sh. Sandeep Wahal and DW3 Sh. S.K.Verma nor the

Clause 22 in Ex. PW15/D1 are of any benefit to the

accused persons as in the present case the advance

money was paid in a hurried manner and even when the

supplier did not have any import license for the machinery

CC No. 10/15 Page 129 of 154
which was supposed to be supplied by it.

143.It is also the defence of the accused persons that

advance money was paid against bank guarantee and

therefore, there was no question of any risk or loss to the

National Airport Authority of India. The question is not of

any risk or any loss. The thing is that accused persons,

namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan have extended financial benefit to

accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya

by giving such a huge amount as an advance money and

allowed them to utilize the said amount for a long period

as the accused persons, namely N.K.Bhartiya and A.K.

Bhartiya did not have any import license to import the

CFTs. The accused N.K. Bhartiya has not placed

anything on record that he was sincere to supply the

CFTs well in time as per the terms of the supply order or

CC No. 10/15 Page 130 of 154
that he had taken the required steps to get the import

license for importing the CFTs.

144.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the allegation

of paying the advance of Rs. 1,74,72,000/ even before

procurement of import license by the supplier, against the

accused persons, namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan, stands

proved.

145.The next allegation is that the accused persons, namely,

C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K.

Ganeshan have also paid an advance of Rs. 39,23,300/

to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. which

was not covered under the terms and conditions of the

supply order.

CC No. 10/15 Page 131 of 154
146.Admittedly this advance has been given by National

Airport Authority of India. It is also admitted that the

payment of Rs. 39,23,300/ as advance money is not

covered under the terms and conditions of the supply

order. The case of the accused persons is that this

amount, in fact, was not paid to accused N.K. Bhartiya

and A.K. Bhartiya, rather it was paid to the Excise

Department in order to pay excise duty. It is also the case

of the accused persons that it has not caused any

financial loss to National Airport Authority of India, as a

very high rate of interest was charged from M/s. Bhartiya

Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. for payment of this

advance money.

147.Admittedly this amount of Rs. 39,23,300/ has been paid

which is not covered under the terms and conditions of

the supply order. This amount was to be paid by M/s.

CC No. 10/15 Page 132 of 154
Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. By paying this

amount, the accused persons have extended financial

benefit to accused N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya and

accommodated them. This was so done by accused

persons, namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P.

Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan, in order to help and

accommodate the accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya

and A.K. Bhartiya as this amount to the Excise

Department was to be paid by the supplier and payment

of this advance money is not covered in the terms and

conditions of the supply order. This all shows that the

accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan, have

acted beyond the terms and conditions of the supply order

in order to facilitate and accommodate accused persons,

namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya. Hence, this

allegation stands proved against the accused persons.

CC No. 10/15 Page 133 of 154

148.The next allegation is that the accused persons, namely,

C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K.

Ganeshan have not invoked the provisions of liquidity

damages as stipulated in Clause 29 of supply order on

account of delay in supply of CFTs.

149.Admittedly there was a delay in the supply of CFTs. It is

also an admitted fact that the Clause 29 of supply order

was not invoked. The case of accused persons is that

this delay was not on the part of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. as the import license was not issued

to it by the concerned authorities. The accused N.K.

Bhartiya has not led any evidence that the required steps

were taken by him or coaccused A.K. Bhartiya well in

time for issuance of import license. No evidence has

been led as to when the said license was applied and

CC No. 10/15 Page 134 of 154
when it was granted. Nor any evidence has been led that

the delay in grant of import license was not on their part or

that the delay was caused due to the acts on the part of

the concerned authorities by which the license was to be

issued. It is also important to note that PW9 Sh. L.C.

Gupta had written a letter Ex.PW9/5 to the Director

(Equipment) i.e. accused P. Rajendran, informing thereby

that there was a delay in supply of CFTs. Therefore,

under these circumstances, it was the duty of the accused

persons namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P.

Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan to invoke Clause 29 of the

supply order. It is also important to note that the supply of

CFTs was to be made within stipulated period and this

has been incorporated in the supply order in Clause 29 of

the supply order. As per the said Clause the

compensation had to be paid by the supplier on account

of delay in the supply of CFTs. This Clause was not

CC No. 10/15 Page 135 of 154
invoked despite the fact that there was a Clause in the

supply order as per which time was the essence of the

Contract. This was incorporated in Clause 25 of the

supply order which is reproduced hereunder:

"25. Time Essence of the Contract : The time
and the date of completion of the supply as
stipulated in the Purchase Order and accepted
by the supplier without or with modification, if
any, and so incorporated in the Purchase order
shall be deemed to be the essence of the
contract. The contractor shall so organize his
resources and perform his work to complete it
not later than the date agreed to."

150.As per the above Clause, the supplier was supposed to

take necessary steps to supply the CFTs well in time and

he was also supposed to manage and organize the things

in such a manner so that supply of the CFTs was not

delayed.

CC No. 10/15 Page 136 of 154
151.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it stands

proved that accused persons, namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan failed to

invoke the provisions of liquidity damages as stipulated in

Clause 29 of supply order on account of delay in supply of

CFTs.

152.The case against the accused persons is that they have

committed the offence of criminal conspiracy and in

furtherance of said criminal conspiracy accused persons,

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan being the public servants they

committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official

positions in an unlawful manner to extend pecuniary gain

to themselves and to the coaccused N.K. Bhartiya and

A.K. Bhartiya of M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co.

CC No. 10/15 Page 137 of 154
Ltd. Thereby, deliberately causing loss to National Airport

Authority of India.

153.It was argued by the Ld. Defence Counsels that there is

no evidence to prove that accused persons have hatched

a criminal conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. The

prosecution has failed to prove the meeting of minds of

the accused persons. Reliance has been placed upon the

judgment reported as Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State

(Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases

609.

154.On the other hand, Ld. P.P. for CBI has relied upon the

judgment of Supreme Court of India reported as

Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439. The relevant portion of

the judgment reads as under:

CC No. 10/15 Page 138 of 154
"It is manifest that a conspiracy is always
hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to
adduce direct evidence of the same. The
offence can be only proved largely from the
inferences drawn from act or illegal omission
committed by the Conspirators in pursuance of
a common design which has been amply
proved by the prosecution as found as a fact by
the High Court."

155.The settled law is that as the conspiracy is generally

hatched in secrecy and it is very difficult to adduce direct

evidence of conspiracy and therefore, the conspiracy can

be proved by circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs.

The State (Delhi Admn.) (Supra), has held that the

conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence and

express agreement need not be proved. It was also held

that neither actual meeting of two persons is necessary

CC No. 10/15 Page 139 of 154
nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of

communication. Therefore, the contention of the Ld.

Defence Counsels that the prosecution has failed to prove

hatching of conspiracy by direct evidence and the meeting

of minds of the accused persons is necessary, without

any force.

156.The settled law is that where the factum of conspiracy is

sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution

has to show that the circumstances give rise to a

conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement

between two or more persons to commit an offence and

the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond

reasonable doubt. This was so held in State of Kerala

Vs. P. Sugathan & Another 2000 SCC (Cri) 1474. Court

is required to take the care and caution in evaluating

circumstances and the evidence relied upon by the

CC No. 10/15 Page 140 of 154
prosecution.

157.Admittedly, in the present case, there is no direct

evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy. The charge

of conspiracy is sought to be proved by the prosecution

on the basis of circumstantial evidence. All the evidence

in this case is documentary which has been discussed

above.

158.It has been held above that the accused persons,

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P.Rajendran

and M.K.Ganeshan did not obtain the approval of Board

of Directors of National Airport Authority of India for

purchasing the CFTs and this approval was mandatory in

the present case. It is also proved that the CFTs were

purchased by not following the due process. It has been

also proved that the payment of advance of

CC No. 10/15 Page 141 of 154
Rs. 1,74,72,000/ was made to M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles &

Engineering Co. Ltd. even before procurement of import

license by the said company. It is also proved above that

the accused persons namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan, have

acted beyond the terms and conditions of the supply order

in order to facilitate and accommodate accused persons,

namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya, by paying

Rs. 39,23,300/ as advance money which was not

included in the terms and conditions of the supply order.

It is also proved above that accused persons, namely,

C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K.

Ganeshan have failed to invoke the provisions of liquidity

damages as stipulated in Clause 29 of supply order on

account of delay in supply of CFTs. Therefore, all these

circumstances taken together clearly proves that the

criminal conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons.

CC No. 10/15 Page 142 of 154

159.The case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the

criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, they

committed certain acts and omissions, as a result of which

the accused persons obtained unlawful pecuniary gain.

No evidence has come on record that accused persons

namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan have obtained pecuniary gain.

However, it has been proved above that by their acts and

omissions, accused persons namely, N.K. Bhartiya and

A.K. Bhartiya have obtained pecuniary gain by obtaining

Rs. 1,74,72,000/ and Rs. 39,23,300/ as advance money.

The accused persons namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S.

Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan have

placed the supply order on accused persons namely N.K.

Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya by not obtaining the approval

of full time Board of National Airport Authority of India and

CC No. 10/15 Page 143 of 154
they have not invoked the provision of liquidity damages

as stipulated in Clause 29 of the supply order, as a result

of which the accused persons namely, N.K. Bhartiya and

A.K. Bhartiya have obtained pecuniary advantage. This

proves that the accused persons namely, C.K.S. Raje,

M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan

have committed criminal misconduct as defined in Section

13(d) (i) & (ii) of P.C. Act.

160.It was argued by the Ld. Defence Counsels that the

alleged offences were committed by the accused persons,

namely C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran

and M.K. Ganeshan, while discharging their official duties.

Therefore, for their prosecution Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C.

and Section 19 of P.C. Act is necessary. It was

contended that for the prosecution of accused P.

Rajendran Sanction u/s 19 of the P.C. Act has been

CC No. 10/15 Page 144 of 154
accorded. It was argued that for the prosecution of

accused P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan u/s 120B IPC,

Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is required.

161.It was contended by the Ld. Defence Counsels that in

the absence of Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. the prosecution

of said accused persons for the offence punishable u/s

120B I.P.C., is bad in law. In support of this contention,

Ld. Defence Counsels have relied upon the following

judgments:

i. State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 617 .

ii. N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI (2016) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 143.

iii. Vinod Chandra Semawal Vs. Special Police
Establishment, Ujjain 2015 (8) SCC 383.

iv. R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
(1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 478.

CC No. 10/15 Page 145 of 154
162.Now the question is that whether in the present case

Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was required or not. The Ld.

Defence Counsel has strongly relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as (2016) 2 SCC

143 in the case of N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI (Supra). The

Ld. Defence Counsels have strongly agitated that this is

the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

thus, the same is the law of land. It was their contention

that as per this judgment, the Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is

required in the present case. I have perused this judgment

and in my considered opinion, this judgment is not

applicable to the facts of this case as in the present case,

it is not the case of the prosecution that conspiracy was

hatched by the accused persons while discharging their

official duties. The relevant portion of the said judgment is

being reproduced as under:

"35. From a perusal of the case law referred to
supra, it becomes clear that for the purpose of
CC No. 10/15 Page 146 of 154
obtaining previous sanction from the
appropriate Government under Section 197
Cr.P.C., it is imperative that the alleged offence
is committed in discharge of official duty by the
accused. It is also important for the Court to
examine the allegations contained in the final
report against the appellants, to decide
whether previous sanction is required to be
obtained by the respondent from the

appropriate Government before taking cognizance of the alleged offence by the learned Special Judge against the accused. In the instant case, since the allegations made against the appellants in the final report filed by the respondent that the alleged offences were committed by them in discharge of their official duty."

163.The crux of this judgment is that it must be a case of the prosecution that if the criminal conspiracy punishable under 120 B I.P.C. was hatched by the accused persons CC No. 10/15 Page 147 of 154 in discharge of their official duties then Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is required. But, it is not the case of the prosecution in the present case that conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons in the discharge of their official duties. There is nothing in the chargesheet that the said conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons in discharge of their official duties. There is not even a single word in the chargesheet which suggests that conspiracy in the present case was hatched by the accused persons while they were discharging their official duties. Therefore, the judgment N.K. Ganguly (supra) relied upon by the accused persons is of no help for them.

164.On the other hand, Ld. P.P. for CBI has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5636/2006, decided on 06.12.2006, wherein, CC No. 10/15 Page 148 of 154 it was held as under: "The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467,468,471 and 120B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence."

165.Ld. P.P. for CBI has also relied upon an another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as 2015 Cri. L.J. 267 (Supreme Court), wherein, it has held as under: "14.The ratio of the aforesaid cases, which is clearly discernible, is that even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in CC No. 10/15 Page 149 of 154 discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted."

166.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and the case law cited above, there is no requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in the present case.

167.It was also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused P. Rajendran that he was exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry held against him on the same facts and allegations. In this regard, it is important to be noted that no evidence has been led that what were the charges against accused P. Rajendran and on what basis he was exonerated. It is also important to be noted that the Head of the Organization, namely National Airport Authority of India was C.K.S. Raje who was also coaccused in this case. Therefore, this argument does not have any merit. CC No. 10/15 Page 150 of 154

168.During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for accused N.K. Bhartiya has argued that the prosecution of accused N.K. Bhartiya is bad in law in the absence of framing any charge against the company i.e. M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd.

169.The perusal of the chargesheet reveals that conspiracy was hatched by accused persons namely, C.K.S. Raje, M.S. Parthasarathy, P. Rajendran, M.K. Ganeshan, N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya. Accused persons, namely N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya represent M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. being its Joint Director and Chairman, respectively. The company cannot hatch a conspiracy as it has no mind. The conspiracy is hatched by the Officials/ Representatives/Directors of the company. In the present case the conspiracy has been CC No. 10/15 Page 151 of 154 hatched by N.K. Bhartiya and A.K. Bhartiya along with co accused. M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. did not hatch any conspiracy. Therefore, there is no requirement to frame a charge against the said company for the reason that the company has no mind, so it cannot act of its own nor it can enter into any conspiracy.

170.In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for accused N.K. Bhartiya has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as Aneeta Hada (Supra). Perusal of this judgment shows that it is of no help for the defence for the reason that the facts of the case in hand are different and the nature of offence in the present case is also different from the nature of offence committed in the case of Aneeta Hada (Supra).

171.In the present case, charge against accused N.K. CC No. 10/15 Page 152 of 154 Bhartiya was ordered to be framed vide order dated 30.01.2003 and in the said order it was held that charge of conspiracy was made out against accused N.K. Bhartiya along with other accused persons. The said Order on Charge has attained finality. Accordingly, the charge has been framed against the accused N.K. Bhartiya and not against the company i.e. M/s. Bhartiya Vehicles & Engineering Co. Ltd. Therefore, under these circumstances, there is no merit in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel.

172.Therefore, in view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons namely P. Rajendran, M.K. Ganeshan and N.K. Bhartiya. Accordingly, accused persons namely, P. Rajendran, M.K. Ganeshan and N.K. Bhartiya are held guilty for the CC No. 10/15 Page 153 of 154 offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120 B I.P.C. r/w Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and they are convicted thereunder. Accused persons namely, P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan are also held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act and are convicted thereunder.

173.The accused persons shall be heard separately on the point of sentence.

Announced in the Open Court on 08.02.2017 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) Special Judge, P.C. Act (CBI) 09, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

CC No. 10/15 Page 154 of 154 IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT (CBI) 09, CENTRAL DISTRICT TIS HAZARI : DELHI.

CC No. 10/15 R.C. No.69(A)/91/CBI/ACB/ND Case I.D. No.02401R003571196 Central Bureau of Investigation Versus

1. Sh. P. Rajendran (Convict) Director (Equipment) National Airport Authority, New Delhi. R/o E1, INA Colony New Delhi.

2. Sh. M.K. Ganeshan (Convict) S/o Late Sh. N.N. Ganeshan Member (Finance) (Retd.) National Airport Authority New Delhi.

R/o 58P, BlockH, DDA Flats Saket, New Delhi.

3. Sh. N.K. Bhartiya (Convict) Managing Director M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle & Engineering Co. Shahibabad, U.P. CC No. 10/15 Page 155 of 154 R/o 42A, Friends Colony (East) New Delhi.

Order on Sentence

1. I have heard the Ld. P.Ps. for the CBI, Sh. Siddharth Agarwal for the Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan. Sh. P.K. Sharma Ld. Counsel for Convict N.K. Bhartiya, on the point of Sentence. I have also perused the file and the written submissions filed on behalf of the Convicts on the point of Sentence.

2. It was submitted by the Ld. P.Ps. for CBI that the Convicts do not deserve any leniency on the point of Sentence. It was submitted that the Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan have abused their official positions and have committed the offence for which they have been held guilty. It was submitted that the Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan were holding responsible and high positions in the office. It was contended that the CC No. 10/15 Page 156 of 154 maximum punishment should be awarded to the Convicts.

3. The Ld. Counsels for the Convict P. Rajendran and Convict M.K. Ganeshan submitted that they are more than 70 years and 80 years of age, respectively and are suffering from various ailments and medical complications. It was contended that they are the first time offenders and have faced no other criminal charge. It was submitted that the Convicts have faced trial for a long period. Both the Convicts have also filed copies of their respective medical documents.

4. The Ld. Counsel for Convict N.K. Bhartiya has submitted that Convict N.K. Bhartiya is a senior citizen. He is stated to be suffering from Prostate Cancer. It was contended that Convict N.K. Bhartiya has faced trial for a considerable long period and has been regularly appearing in the Court until he has been exempted from personal appearance through his Counsel on the ground CC No. 10/15 Page 157 of 154 of medical illness. He is a first time offender and not a previous convict.

5. I have considered the contentions of the Ld. P.Ps. for CBI and the Ld. Counsels for all the Convicts. The Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan are convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120 B I.P.C. r/w Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act along with the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The menace of corruption is a serious threat to the society and it causes loss to the State exchequer. The problem of corruption is like a disease of cancer to the society. Keeping in view the old age and health conditions of the Convicts and also having regard to the fact that the trial has taken more than twenty years, the Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each with the fine of Rs. 50,000/ each for CC No. 10/15 Page 158 of 154 the offence punishable under Section 120B I.P.C. r/w Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, the Convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months. Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan are also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each with the fine of Rs. 50,000/ each for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, the Convicts shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months . Convicts P. Rajendran and M.K. Ganeshan are sentenced accordingly. The benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C., if any, be given to them.

6. Convict N.K. Bhartiya is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/ for the offence punishable u/s 120 B I.P.C. r/w CC No. 10/15 Page 159 of 154 Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, the Convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months. He is sentenced accordingly. The benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C., if any, be given to him.

7. Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given immediately to the Convicts, free of cost. Fine paid. Previous bailbonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

8. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the Open Court on 15.02.2017 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) Special Judge, P.C. Act (CBI) 09 Central District, Tis Hazari/Delhi.

CC No. 10/15 Page 160 of 154

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sh. C.K.S. Raje (Since Expired) on 15 February, 2017