Delhi District Court
Special Judge (Pc Act) Cbi vs Unknown on 18 July, 2017
CBI/5/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Registration No. : CBI/5/2016
Under Section : 120-B r/w 420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,
1988.
Zone : CBI ACU-II
FIR No. : RC/2(A)/1996
CNR No. : DLET01-000002-1998
In the matter of :-
CBI
VERSUS
1. BRIGADIER A.K. SONI
The Then Chief Engineer, MES,
Delhi Zone, New Delhi.
S/o. Late S.S. Soni,
R/o. H.No.R-7, New Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. N.B. SINGH
The Then Superintendent Surveyor of Works,
MES, Delhi Zone, New Delhi.
S/o. Late Chander Pal Singh,
R/o. H.No.A-71, Indu Vihar,
Pratap Garh, U.P.
3. K.K. KARIHALOO
The Then SO-II, EM Section,
MES, Delhi Zone, New Delhi.
S/o. Sh. S.N. Karihaloo,
R/o. H.No.167, Rajouri Apartment,
Mayapuri, New Delhi.
4. K.L. KHANNA
S/o. Late C.L. Khanna,
R/o.H.No.A-1/265, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
5. S.K. SHANGARI (since deceased)
The Then ACE, MES,
Delhi Zone, New Delhi.
Page 1 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/5/2016
6. MOHD ZAFAR-UL-LAH
The Then SO-I, EM Section, MES, Delhi Zone, New Delhi.
S/o. Sh. M.A. Badar,
R/o. H.No.137, EWSH,
New Santosh Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad, Telangana.
...........ACCUSED PERSONS
Name and particulars of complainant : Source Information
Date of Institution : 19.09.1998
Date of receiving in this Court : 01.10.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 01.06.2017
Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2017
Decision : Acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION :-
1. Briefly stated, on the basis of a source information present case was registered by CBI. Source information disclosed that Brigadier A.K. Soni, Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal, Sh. N.B. Singh, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo, Sh. K.L. Khanna, proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors and M/s. Stefeb India Ltd., during the years 1994-95 entered into a criminal conspiracy with object to cheat MES, Delhi Zone and in pursuance of this criminal conspiracy, a contract of supply, installation and commissioning of a mechanised laundry plant at R&R Hospital, Delhi Cantt., was dishonestly awarded to M/s. K.B. Contractors by Brigadier A.K. Soni at highly exorbitant rates.
2. On the basis of investigation, IO reported and alleged that Brigadier A.K. Soni was posted as Chief Engineer; Sh. S. Sanghari was posted as ACE (Planning); Sh. N.B. Singh was posted as Superintendent Surveyor of Works in E-8 Section and Sh. Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah was posted as SO-I (E&M) Section, MES, Delhi Zone during the years 1994-95.
3. Sh. K.K. Karihaloo was posted as SO-II (E&M) Section of MES, Delhi Zone during the years 1994-95. The government had accorded sanction for installation of a new mechanical laundry plant at R&R Hospital at an Page 2 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 estimated cost of Rs. 1.21 crores. The Chief Engineer, MES, Delhi Zone was assigned the task of contract planning of this project. Sh. K.K. Karihaloo made inquiries from M/s. Stefab Commercial Equipment Company and called for details of the equipments required for setting up this laundry having capacity of 2000 kg wash for eight hours shift. The representative of the company, vide letter dated 13.12.1993, offered certain equipments for the aforesaid project. Subsequently, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo, vide his office note dated 05.04.1994, submitted a draft tender for the proposed laundry plant, on the basis of data supplied to him by M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. He included the specifications of M/s. Stefeb equipments in the tender schedule-A and recommended the equipments of M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. or M/s. Snow White make. This draft tender schedule-A was dishonestly approved by Brigadier A.K. Soni and the tender document was floated on 08.07.1994 with specification and model numbers of Stefab Equipments.
4. Brigadier A.K. Soni deliberately omitted to issue a fresh advertisement for this project and relied upon the application received in response to earlier advertisement for this project, which appeared in the trade manuals in 1990. Sh. N.B. Singh dishonestly recommended the names of seven parties, who had applied for issuance of tender documents, which was approved by Brigadier A.K. Soni. Brigadier A.K. Soni also approved issuance of tender documents to M/s. Stefeb India Ltd., on the basis of an application received from this company.
5. However, in the tender documents, the vital equipments necessarily required for setting up the laundry plant, were deliberately omitted by these officers of MES, with a view to avoid attention of interested parties.
They did not give any specification of the boiler required for this plant and the accessories required for this boiler at the time of floating and issuance of tender documents.
Page 3 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016
6. Out of eight parties who obtained tender documents, only three parties submitted their bids in two parts i.e. technical bid and price bid. These parties were M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Company and M/s. K.B. Contractors. Out of these three bidders, only M/s. K.B. Contractors quoted for equipment of M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. Other two parties quoted for their own product and they represented to MES to include their products in the tender. However, no consideration was given by the accused officials of MES to such representation of these two parties.
7. Technical bids were opened in E-8 Section on 26.09.1994 and thereafter, it was forwarded to E-4 Section for comments. On 06.10.1994, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo, gave his comments on these three bids and dishonestly made a misleading remark that cases of M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Company were being considered separately, though, as a matter of fact, there was no such proposal.
8. Sh. K.K. Karihaloo recommended the technical bid of M/s. K.B. Contractors and remarked to ask this company to give detailed design part of the laundry plant. On 05.11.1994, Sh. N.B. Singh put up a note to Chief Engineer SO-I E&M Section with remarks that only M/s. K.B. Contractors had quoted for the required make and a decision was required to be taken that whether the user (Army Hospital) would accept any other make than M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. or to process the case of M/s. K.B. Contractors only. This remark was supported by Sh. Mohd. Zafar- Ul-Lah as well. However, there was a third option also available to the Chief Engineer i.e. to call for a fresh tender after making proper publicity but Brigadier A.K. Soni did not take final decision and the file was returned.
Page 4 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016
9. On 21.11.1994, Sh. K.L. Khanna, proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors visited the premises of M/s. Stefeb India Ltd., and made contact with Sh. Yogesh Kandhari (Dy. Manager Sales). Sh. Sh. K.L. Khanna, proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors requested Sh. Yogesh Kandhari to issue quotation and obtained it from him, wherein highly exaggerated price of M/s. Stefeb equipment was given. This quotation also included price of boiler, which was not manufactured by M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. Thereafter, on 23.11.1994, Sh. Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah prepared an estimate of the proposed plant and forwarded the same to E-in-C's Branch. The estimate was given at Rs. 67.91 lacs without optional items and it was based on quotation dated 21.11.1994. Sh. Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah did not make any independent inquiry, neither any other accused person of MES ascertained the prevailing prices of the equipments required for this plant. Later on, amendments were carried out in the tender documents to include a number of new equipments and accessories and even the number of equipments was increased and specification of some equipments were changed. These amendments were intimated only to M/s. K.B. Contractors and the other two bidders were kept in dark. On 01.02.1995, Sh. N.B. Singh put up a note before Chief Engineer in contrast to his earlier notings given on 05.11.1994. Vide this new note, he recommended for opening the price bid of M/s. K.B. Contractors only and he also noted that in the cases where only one of the parties qualified for the technical bid, the accepting authority might consider the award of the work to that single party. This was further recommended by Sh. S.K. Shangari from (ACE Planning) and it was so approved by Brigadier A.K. Soni. The price bid was opened on 06.02.1995, wherein it was found that M/s. K.B. Contractors had offered the laundry plant with all accessories and optional items at a cost of Rs.72,75,248/-. Sh. Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah was asked to comment on the reasonability of the prices Page 5 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 offered by this contractor and he prepared a rate justification report on 23.03.1995, wherein he held the rates offered by the contractor to be just and reasonable. Same was the stand taken by Brigadier A.K. Soni and Sh. Sh. N.B. Singh. A few more changes were included in the scope of work in respect of capacity of water and oil storage tanks and the cost of product was enhanced to Rs.73,59,248/-. Brigadier A.K. Soni dishonestly and by abusing his official position, accepted the bid of M/s. K.B. Contractors and the work order was placed upon this contractor, vide contract No. 8495/4/34/E8 dated 15.07.1995. The contract price of Rs.73,59,248/- was on the higher side and MES was put to a wrongful loss of Rs. 23,54,881/-.
10.The overall cost of this project on turn key basis was estimated to be Rs. 50,05,367/- by a team of technical experts, on the basis of bills/invoices of the contractor and the measurements taken at the site. Even the expenditure of this contractor in respect of aforesaid work was Rs. 48 lakh only. The equipments of M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. were available in the market at rates much lower than those, at which it was so installed by M/s. K.B. Contractors in this hospital. This contractor had purchased all these equipments at a cost of Rs.29,84,313.49/- and supplied them to MES for Rs.45,17,700/-. Similarly, boilers were installed at a cost of Rs. 5.98 lacs per unit, though, the same model was available in the market at price ranging between 3-3.5 lakh per unit including all the expenses. Similarly, other components of this mechanical laundry were found to be supplied and installed by this contractor at exorbitant prices. Thus, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy an amount of Rs.7,35,249/- was released to Sh. Sh. K.L. Khanna, (proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors), thereby causing loss of Rs. 23,53,881/- to MES and causing wrongful gain to the accused persons or others.
Page 6 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 CHARGE :-
11.After completion of investigation, accused persons namely Brig. A.K. Soni, Sh. N.B. Singh, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo, Sh. K.L. Khanna, Sh. S.K. Shanghari and Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. On 03.03.2008, charges were framed against all six accused persons for aforesaid offences. On the same day separate charges were framed against accused Brig. A.K. Soni, Sh. N.B. Singh, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo, Sh. S.K. Shangari, Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah for offences punishable under Section 13(1) (d) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. Thereafter, on the same day a separate charge was framed against accused Sh. K.L. Khanna for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
12.Prosecution examined 41 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions.
PW Name of Role of witness Proved document/ article No. Witness PW-1 Sh. K.L. Manufacturer of Ex. PW-1/1 (letter dated 22.08.90 of M/s. BTC Arora Laundry Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd. which Machine under bear signature of Sh. Rajeev Arora the then name and style Director of afore-said company at point A as of M/s. BTC M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Laundry Ltd. had applied to MES for issuance of a Equipment Co. tender in response of their advertisement in Pvt. Ltd. the newspaper Times of India.
Ex. PW-1/2 (letter dated 20.09.1994 of M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vide which M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi submitted its offer in response to tender CA- CEDZ-7/94-95 provision of laundry plant to R&R Hospital at Delhi Cantt for supply of BTC's Industrial laundry and dry cleaning equipment and also submitted their quotations therewith) Page 7 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-1/3 (scheduled A annexed with letter dated 20.09.1994) Ex. PW-1/4 (letter dated 30.07.1994 of M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi which was signed by Sh. Henry A. Wilson Sales Manager) Ex. PW-1/DA (is a tender document); Ex. PW-1/DC (is a file containing statement for supply orders executed by M/s. BT Laundry Equipment Pvt. Ltd.); Ex. PW-1/DC-1 (Statement showing supply orders); Ex. PW- 1/DC-2 (is a letter accompanying Ex. PW- 1/DC-1); Ex. PW-1/DC-3 (Technical data of sluicing machine of M/s. BTC laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd.);
PW-2 Sh. Partner of M/s. Ex. PW-2/1 (bill bearing his signatures at point Madan Nagpal Electric A vide which they had sold electrical wire Lal company mentioned therein to M/s. K.B Contractors, for Nagpal Chandni Chowk, Rs. 11,655/- including tax. Payment against Delhi the said bill was received vide cheque from M/s. K.B Contractor) Ex. PW-2/2 (Carbon copy of bill Ex. PW-2/1 available in the bill book) PW-3 Sh. R.K. Proprietor of Ex. PW-3/1 to Ex. PW-3/3 (invoices dated Aggarwal M/s. Sarjoo 5.05.95, 08.09.95, and dated 04.10.95 issued Electricals in the name of M/s. K.B. Contractors bearing (India) Bhagirath his signatures) Ex. PW-3/4 (statement of sale Place, New of his aforesaid firm) Delhi.
PW-4 Sh. Hans retired from the Ex. PW-4/1 (Note sheet) Raj post of Surveyor Ex. PW-4/1/A (endorsement made by Chief Sharma of Works, Engineer under his initials at point B) Military Engineering Ex. PW-4/2 (letter dated 24.07.90) Services, Delhi. Ex. PW-4/2-A (note sheets) An official of MES, who had Ex. PW-4/2-B (Notice inviting tender) been Ex. PW-4/2-C (Note) communicating with other Ex. PW-4/2-D (Internal Office Note dated officials of MES 05.04.1994, bearing signatures of accused in respect of this K.K. Karihaloo) project. Ex. PW-4/2-E (Schedule A which was dealt with by accused N.B. Singh, the then SSW) Ex. PW-4/2-F (internal office note bearing signatures of Sh. Satish Chandra) Ex. PW-4/2-G (document clarified by E-4 Section that two types of bids i.e. Technical and Financial should be invited through tender).
Page 8 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-4/2-H (endorsement) Ex. PW-4/2-K (letter dated 11.07.94, vide which Sh. Satish Chander sent a set of tender document to Commander Works Engineer, R&R hospital, Delhi Cantt and Garrison Engineer (Project) for the work of Laundary Plant there.
Ex. PW-4/2K-1 (tender documents including drawings of the plant collectively) Ex. PW-4/2K-2 (is in response to Ex.PWS/13, and Inter Office Note bears signatures of K.K. Karihaloo (A3) at point A, which he identified and the Inter Office Note is Ex.PW4/21-2.
Ex. PW-4/2K-3 (Inter Office Note dated 06th October, 1994.
Ex. PW-4/2K-4 (Inter Office Note) Ex. PW-4/2K-5 (typed Note No. 2 dated 04.11.94, signed by Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah (A6), SO-I, Electricals);
Ex. PW-4/2K-6 (note of N.B. Singh dated 05.11.94, as per tender requirements, bid of M/s. KB Contractors, only be opened) Ex. PW-4/2K-7 (The file was put up beforfe Chief Engineer through ACE (Planning), who observed "I thought M/s. STEFAB had also applied for the contract, what happened" and marked the File to SSW which bears signatures of accused Brig. A.K. Soni (A-1). N.B. Singh, SSW (A-2);
Ex. PW-4/2K-8 (Note dated 11.11.1994 intimating that M/s. STEFAB had not applied and again file was put up before Chief Engineer, who had seen the file on 12.11.1994 and initialed the same at point C which note was written by the witness as per direction of N.B. Singh (A-2);
Ex. PW-4/2K-9 (letter dated 28.11.1994 at page No. 35 of File Ex.PW4/2, which bears signatures of Shri M.L. Sapori, Assistant Engineer/SO-Ill of E-4 Section at point A);
Ex. PW-4/2K-10 (letter No. 82168/37/E-8 dated 05.12.94, running into two pages, which bears signatures of witness at points A on each page);
Ex. PW-4/2K-11 (Folio No. 41 i.e. Inter Office Note dated 23.12.1994 placed in File (D-2) Ex.PW4/2, which bears signatures of Shri M.L. Sapori, Staff Page 9 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Officer-It, Electrical/Mechanical (SO-Ill E/M) at point A);
Ex. PW-4/2K-12 (letter dated 29.12.1994 to M/s. K.B. Contractors);
Ex. PW-4/2K-13 (letter/reply dated 06.12.1994 of M/s. K.B. Contractors); Ex. PW-4/2K-14 (reply/clarification of M/s. K.B. Contractors);
Ex. PW-4/2K-15 (forwarding letter of PW-4 bearing his signatures);
Ex. PW-4/2K-16 (comments of Sh. M.L. Sapori in file Ex. PW-4/2);
Ex. PW-4/2K-17 (Note 3 refers the date of opening of Q-Bid may be fixed on 06.05.1995"
which was sent to the then Chief Engineer);
Ex. PW-4/2K-18 (copy of rates quoted by M/s.
K.B Contractors to E-4, Section alongwith his note vide which he had asked E-2 (Planning Section) to intimate about the availability of funds);
Ex. PW-4/2K-19 (inter office note dated 04.03.1995 of E-4 Section placed at Folio/Page No. 53 in File Ex.PW4/2 (D-4). The said note bears signatures of Mohd. Zaffar Ullah (A-6) vide which it was informed by Mohd. Zaffar Ullah (A-6) that Q-Bid had been scrutinized. The amount without optional items worked out to Rs.67.62 lakhs. Mohd. Zaffar Ullah (A-6) had also sent details); Ex. PW-4/2K-20 (note dated 10.02.1995 available at Folio/page No. 50 in File Ex.PW4/2 (D-4) about the availability of funds which bears signatures of Shri D.S. Saxena, the then SO-l (Planning));
Ex. PW-4/2K-21 (note dated 07.03.1995 of E- 8 Section at Folio/Page No. 52 in File Ex.PW4/2 (D-4), which bears signatures of N.B. Singh (A-2) which was initiated by witness and confirmed by N.B. Singh (A-2)); Ex. PW-4/2K-22 (inter office note dated 11.03.1995 of E-4 Section at 'Folio/Page No. 56 in File Ex.PW4/2 (D-4), which bears signatures of Mohd. Zaffar Ullah (A-6) at point A which was received in E-8 Section); Ex. PW-4/2K-23 (Folio/Page No. 59 available in File Ex.PW4/2 (D-4), which bears signatures of Shri M.L. Sapori at point A vide which Shri M.L. Sapori had sent photocopy of noting sheet of File No. 43087/IX/E-4 dated 29 March, 1995 to E-8 Section);
Page 10 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-4/2K-24 (Photocopy of note sheet of File No. 4308 /IX/E-4, running into 3 pages accompanied by Ex.PW4/2K-23 which bears signatures of Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah (A-6); Ex. PW-4/2K-25 (Note No. 8 dated 06.05.1995 in File Ex.PW4/2 (D-4), which bears signatures of N.B.. Singh (A-2), wherein N.B. Singh (A-2) had mentioned that "overall rates including optional items are reasonable". N.B. Singh (A-2) sent a note Ex.PW4/2K-25 to Chief Engineer through SO-l (E/M) i.e. Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah, (A-6). Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah (A-6) put up his note under his signatures at point B); Ex. PW- 4/2K-26 (Note No. 10, which bears signatures of witness at point A which was sent the same day to Chief Engineer through ACE (Planning);
Ex. PW-4/DA (order of N.B. Singh allocating duties and responsibilititres of Surveyor of Wroks including other staff of E-8 Section, working under him);
Ex. PW-4/2B (D-4) (is a document as per which cost of the MLP was Rs. 42 lacs.
Ex. PW-4/A-1 to A2/1 (Approval of the office of DGMS under the signature of Lt. Col. R.K. Bhaskar and the approval of the E-in-C of Army HQ received vide their letter dated 20.12.94) Ex. PW-4/A-1 to A2/4 (covering letter dated 05.07.95 of final contract bearing no. CED4- 7/94-95) Ex. PW-4/A-1 to A2/5 (office copy of contract);
Ex. PW-4/A-1 to A2/6 (contract under which PW was authorised to sign and initial the document on behalf of the Chief Engineer) Ex. PW-4/A-1 to A2/7 (document dated 08.05.95 of file Ex. PW-4/2, signed by Sh. D.S. Saxena) Ex. PW-4/2KA1-A2/5 (Contract having amount of Rs. 73,59,248/-) Ex. PW-4/3-A1-A2 (Contract having amount of Rs. 73,59,248/-) Ex. PW-4/A3/1 (Folio no. 35 of Ex. PW-4/3- A1-A2 (D-3)) (Ex. PW-4/DB could not be found in evidence) Page 11 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-5 Sh. Surveyor of Ex. PW-5/1 (endorsement appearing on the Satish Works under the reverse of Ex. PW-5/1 that it was received Chander, control of Chief vide Diary no. 47 on 11.08.1990.
Engineer, MES, Ex. PW-5/2 (endorsement appearing on the Delhi Zone, (E-8 reverse of Ex. PW-5/2 that it was received Section). vide Diary no. 114 on 07.08.1990.
Ex. PW-5/3 (endorsement appearing on the reverse of Ex. PW-5/3 that it was received vide Diary no. 91 on 06.08.1990.
Ex. PW-5/4 (endorsement appearing on the reverse of Ex. PW-5/4 that it was received vide Diary no. 156 on 09.08.1990.
Ex.PW-5/5 (endorsement appearing on the reverse of Ex. PW-5/5 that it was received vide Diary no. 9 on 24.08.1990.
Ex. PW-5/6 (endorsement appearing on the reverse of Ex. PW-5/6 that it was received vide Diary no. 520 on 24.08.1990.
Ex. PW-5/7 (endorsement appearing on the reverse of Ex. PW-5/7 that it was received vide Diary no. 188 on 24.08.1990.
Ex. PW-5/8 (endorsement appearing on the reverse of Ex. PW-5/8 that it was received vide Diary no. 503 on 22.09.1990.
Ex. PW-5/9 (letter dated 12th July, 1994, which was issued under signatures of accused N.B. Singh (A2), the then SSW.
Carbon copy of the relevant letter bears signatures of Shri N.B. Singh (A2) at point A. The said letter is Ex.PW5/9 and is available in File Ex.PW1/DC);
Ex.PW-5/10 (details mentioned in Ex.PW5/10, which was prepared in E-8 Section wherein it was decided to issue tender documents to the seven applicants, out of aforesaid eight applicants and not to issue tender documents to M/s. Ashoka Furnitures and this was recommended by accused N.B. Singh (A2) vide endorsement encircled at point A and approved by Chief Engineer Brig. A.K. Soni (A1) at portion encircled at point B);
Ex. PW-5/11 (Appendix A contains reason for non-issuance of tender documents to M/s. Ashoka Furnitures);
Ex. PW-5/12 (the application Ex. PW5/12 is available in File Ex.PW1/DC which was processed by him through a Note No. 2 dated 19th August, 1994 in Y. Page 12 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-5/13 (letter dated 26th September vide which price bids submitted by the firms were forwarded to E-4 Section for their technical evaluation.
Ex. PW-5/14 (letter dated 19.09.1994 which was received on 24th September, 1994 from M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. asking "Kindly confirm the make of BTC is acceptable or only STEFAB or Snow White as mentioned in your tender which was addressed to Chief Engineer and was received in E-8 Section);
Ex. PW-5/15 (covering letter showing no reply was received from E-4 vide Section when on 26th September 1994 the aforesaid financial bids were opened);
Ex. PW-5/DA (letter dated 15.06.94);
Ex. PW-5/DB (Revised handwritten details on the basis of which tender was issued) Ex. PW-5/DC (letter dated 07.09.94 addressed to GFMS (Army) Ex. PW-5/DD (inter office note received from E-4, intimating some discrepancies in the bid submitted by M/s. K.B. Contractors, notified to said firm by E-8 Section) Ex. PW-5/DE (inter office note Ex. PW-5/15 available in file D-3, maintained in E-4, Section at page no. 38) PW-6 Sh. Managing Ex. PW-6/1 (The invoice having description of Deepak Director of M/s. machines, quantity, rate and total value of Arora STEFAB India machines is Rs.30,32,198.10);
Ltd. since its Ex. PW-6/2 (different invoices which were inception seized by seizure memo dated 09.05.96 Ex.
P1/24);
Ex. PW-6/3 (different invoices relating to the supply to various customers);
PW-7 Sh. B.S. Proprietor of Ex. PW-7/1 (Bill No. 154 dated 22nd
Bammi M/s. Bammi September, 1995 of his aforesaid firm, which
Associates at bears his signature at point A. The said bill is
WZ-374/2, Shiv Ex.PW7/1);
Nagar, New
Delhi, who was
dealing in Water
Softening Plant
in the year 1995.
Page 13 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-8 Sh. Raj Manager in M/s. Ex. PW-8/1 (Letter handing over documents Kumar Gaurav to CBI) Fashions Ex. PW-8/2 (vide invoice Ex.PW8/2, M/s. situated at RZ-2, Gaurav Fashions had purchased from M/s. Indira Park Ext., STEFAB, one STEFAB Industrial Washing Uttam Nagar, Machine having capacity of 25 kg for Rs. New Delhi. 1,38,500/- one STEFAB Hydro Extractor having capacity of 25 kg for Rs. 60,50/- and one STEFAB Drying Tumbler having capacity of 25 kg for Rs. 90,500/- IN March 1995); Ex. PW-8/3 Ex. PW-8/4 Ex. PW-8/5 (Order of acceptance);
Ex. PW-8/6 (Invoice No. 061 dated 24.04.1995 of M/s. STEFAB vide which company had delivered the material to M/s. Gaurav Fashions);
Ex. PW-8/7 (Delivery Challan No. 435 dated 24.04.1995);
PW-9 Sh. Vinay Manager in M/s. Ex. PW-9/1 (letter dated 25.09.1996 (D-37) Sakay Traders printed on the letterhead of M/s. Sakya situated at WZ- Traders, which bears his signatures at point A 54, Basti Nau, and the same is Ex.PW9/1. Vide Ex.PW9/1); Jalandhar, Ex. PW-9/2 to Ex. PW-9/6 (Proforma Invoice Punjab between dated 08th May, 1995 of M/s. Thermax Ltd., 1993 to May, order dated 16.05.1995 placed on M/s. 2011 Thermax Ltd. by M/s. Sakya Traders, Invoice No. 010171 dated 20.06.1995 of M/s.
Thermax Ltd. raised on M/s. Sakya Traders);
PW-10 Sh. P.R. Financial Ex. PW-10/1 (letter dated 15.07.1996
Ramanan Controller in addressed to Office of SP CBI SPE/ACU-II,
Ambattur 7th Floor, Block NO. 3, CGO Complex, New
Clothing Delhi);
Company Ex. PW-10/2 (statement of purchase of
laundry equipments from 1991 to 1996
running into three pages);
Ex. PW-10/3 (receipt of courier with regard to sending the same) PW-11 Sh. He was running Ishwar a company by Singh the name of Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd.
Having office at 152, Sec-17, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Page 14 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-12 Sh. I.D. Accountant in Ex. PW-12/1 (sale invoice dated 05.07.1995 Indo Asiatic (D-48/1));
Dua Engineers Pvt. Ex. PW-12/2 (sale invoice dated 30.06.1995 Ltd., C-102, (D-48(II) through which the tank fabrication @ Mayapuri Phase Rs.35,000/- per piece was sold to M/s. K.B. 2, New Delhi Contractors);
Ex. PW-12/3 (The sale invoice dated 30.06.1995 (D-48(III). By this invoice the tank fabrication with accessories @ Rs.22,000/- was sold to M/s. K.B. Contractors);
Ex. PW-12/4 (The sale invoice dated 28.06.1995 (D-48(IV). By this invoice the tank 3000 KL out of MS plate Fabrication @ 9500/- per piece and chimney with accessories @ Rs.15,000/- was sold to M/s. K.B. Contractors. Ex. PW-12/5 (The sale invoice dated 28.06.1995 (D-48(V). By this invoice the MS fabrication of tank with accessories @ Rs.3000/- per piece was sold to M/s. K.B. Contractors. The total number of pieces were five).
Ex. PW-12/6 (The cash book of Indo Asiatic Engineers Pvt. Ltd maintained during the official course of business) Ex. PW-12/6A (an entry at page no. 26 (D- 48/7) for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was received from M/s. K.B. Contractor through cheque) Ex. PW-12/6B (an entry at page no. 26 (D- 48/VI) for an amount of Rs. 9675/- was received from M/s. K.B. Contractor through cheque);
PW-13 Sh. Ex. PW-13/1 (seizure memo);
Mehmood Ex. PW-13/2 (invoice no. 5 dated 05.05.1994
Aslam for Rs.1,97,350.80);
Ex. PW-13/2 to Ex. PW-13/8 (The invoice no. 60 dated 12.09.1994, no. 81 dated 19.10.1994, no. 102 dated 05.12.1994, no. 105 dated 14.12.1994, no. 109 dated 22.12.1994, no. 124 dated 20.09.1995. The items mentioned in the respective invoices were purchased from Stefab as per rates mentioned therein);
Ex. PW-13/9 to Ex. PW-13/14 (The original delivery challans no. 6309 dated 05.05.1994, 6521 dated 19.10.1994, 035 dated 05.12.1994, 050 dated 14.12.1994, 064 dated 22.12.1994 and 755 dated 20.09.1995); Ex. PW-13/15 (nsurance declarations no. 121 dated 05.05.1994);
Page 15 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-13/16 to Ex. PW-13/17 (original G.R. no. 2813 dated 05.05.1994 of Burma Tempo Transport Service and G.R. no. 2724 dated 19.10.1994 of Burma Tempo Transport Service);
PW-14 Sh. General Ex. PW-14/1 (letter dated 15.07.1996 issued Rameshw Manager in by Finance Manager Sh. Dinesh Saxena ar Gaur Radnik Exports, addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU II.
having office at Alongwith this letter purchase bill of laundry 412, Ocean equipments were supplied to CBI); Building, Nehru Ex. PW-14/2 (details of laundry equipments Place, New purchased from 1994 to 1996, detail of invoice Delhi. no. 38 dated 10.03.1995, invoice no. 44 dated 23.03.1995, invoice no. 37 dated 10.11.1995, invoice no. 41 dated 14.11.1995.
Ex. PW-14/2/1 (The invoice no. 38).
Ex. PW-14/2/2 (copy of invoice no. 44 dated 23.03.1995. This shows the purchase of one washing machine by their firm from Stefab for the amount as mentioned therein);
Ex. PW-14/2/3 (invoice no. 37 dated 10.11.1995. This shows the purchase of one spotting workstation by this firm from Xact Enterprises for the amount as mentioned therein);
Ex. PW-14/2/4 (copy of invoice no. 41 dated 14.11.1995. This shows the purchase of various machines such as pressing table, boiler, steam iron by their firm from Xact Enterprises for the amount as mentioned therein);
PW-15 Sh. Partner of M/s. Ex. PW-15/1 (The seizure memo dated
Munesh S.M. 09.07.1996 (D-39(V));
Kumar International Ex. PW-15/2 (invoice wherein detail of the
amount has been mentioned);
Ex. PW-15/3 (carbon copy of invoice no. 73 dated 12.05.1995 vide which firm S.M. International had purchased);
Ex. PW-15/4 (copy of invoice no. 27 dated 14.02.1995 vide which firm S.M. International had purchased drycleaning machine, hydro extractor and drying tumbler from Stefab for the amount as mentioned in the invoice); Ex. PW-15/5 (certified copy of invoice no. 46 dated 24.03.1995 vide which firm S.M. International had purchased washing machine and hydro extractor from Stefab for the amount as mentioned in the invoice);
Ex. PW-15/6 (advance cheque of Rs.1.25 Lac); Ex. PW-15/7 (Stefab acceptance order);
Page 16 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-16 Sh. working as a Ex. PW-16/1 (installation details dated 29.6.95 Davender Service Engineer (D-22) which was prepared in four pages vide Tyagi with Super which technical details to R&R hospital, Delhi Service Cantt. were given.
Company which was the sister concern of M/s.
Stefab India Ltd
PW-17 Sh. R.K. He was working Ex. PW-17/1 (carbon copy of the letter dated
Rana with M/s. Stefab 29.2.96, which was written by M/s. K.B.
India Ltd as Contractor to Stefab India Ltd for reduction of
Deputy Manager the cost.
Works
PW-18 Sh. He was working Ex. PW-18/1 (ledger of M/s. Stefab India Ltd
Samuel as Accounts for the period from 1.4.94 to 31.3.95 (part of
Adhikari Executive in D-20 six pages). It is a computer print out
Stefab India Ltd., bearing his signature at point A on all the six 30 North pages);
Avenue, West Ex. PW-18/2 (ledger of M/s. Stefab India Ltd Punjabi Bagh, for the period from 1.4.95 to 9.5.96 (part of D- New Delhi. 20). It is a computer print out bearing his signature at point A);
Ex. PW-18/3 (ledger of M/s. Stefab India Ltd for the period from 1.4.95 to 31.3.96 (part of D-20 two pages). It is a computer print out bearing his signature at point A on both the pages);
Ex. PW-18/4 (ledger of M/s. Stefab India Ltd for the period from 1.4.93 to 31.3.94 (part of D-20 two pages). It is a computer print out bearing his signature at point A on both the pages.
PW-19 Sh. A.K. He was running Ex. PW-19/1 (copy of the bill concerning Khattar his business in supply of control panel bearing no. 95/270 the name and dated 9.1.96 for the total amount of Rs. style of Risha 1,73,628/-. By this bill he had supplied the Consultants and control panel (quantity 21 in number) to M/s.
Engineers at B- K.B. Contractors. His sign on the bill appears
1/523, Janak at point A);
Puri Ex. PW-19/2 & Ex. PW-19/3 (two enclosed
challans No. 95/10/1 dated 10.10.95 and 95/10/3 dated 25.10.95);
Ex. PW-19/4 (entry dated 9.1.96 detailing the sale particulars of bill no.95/270-A and also the amount of sale tax payable on that at page 4 of the register. Against this entry the bill amount is 1,73,628/- and the amount of sale tax is 9828/-);
Page 17 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-19/5 (sale tax deposit challan for the quarter January to March 96 of M/s. Risha Consultants and Engineers vide which an amount of Rs. 11,628/- was paid towards sale tax (D-46 ii));
PW-20 Sh. Rajiv In the year 1995 Ex. PW-20/1 (bill bearing no. 17353 is dated Kumar he was running 9.8.95 of the amount of Rs. 1605.48 paisa);
business in the Ex. PW-20/2 ( bill bearing no. 17445 is dated name and style 30.8.95 of the amount of Rs. 19,398.50 paisa of M/s. Punjab Ex. PW-20/3 ( bill bearing no. 17446 is dated Pipes. This firm 30.8.95 of the amount of Rs. 22,445.50 paisa belonged to his Ex. PW-20/4 ( bill bearing no. 17627 is dated wife Smt. 4.10.95 of the amount of Rs. 21,276.40 paisa Ruchika Arora. Ex. PW-20/5 ( bill bearing no. 17642 is dated 6.10.95 of the amount of Rs. 5201.05 paisa Ex. PW-20/6 (bill bearing no. 17704 is dated 13.10.95 of the amount of Rs. 1005/-) Ex. PW-20/7 (The seventh bill bearing no. 17942 is dated 23.11.95 of the amount of Rs. 670/-
Ex. PW-20/8 (bill bearing no. 17992 is dated 2.12.95 of the amount of Rs. 6579.33 paisa Ex. PW-20/9 (bill bearing no. 18341 is dated 8.2.96 of the amount of Rs. 624/-
Ex. PW-20/10 (bill bearing no. 18342 is dated 8.2.96 of the amount of Rs. 7198/-
Ex. PW-20/11 (entry dated 9.8.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.38). This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs.
1605.48 paisa);
Ex. PW-20/12 to Ex. PW-20/13 (the entry dated 30.8.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.41) and sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs. 19,398.50 paisa and also the entry relating to bill no. 17446 for Rs. 22,445.50 paisa wherein Rs. 1108.52 paisa was paid as sale tax);
Ex. PW-20/14 (entry dated 4.10.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.52). This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs.
21,276.40 paisa);
Ex. PW-20/15 (entry dated 6.10.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.53). This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs.
5201.05 paisa. The amount of sale tax shown in the entry is Rs.340.25 paisa);
Page 18 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-20/16 (entry dated 13.10.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.56) . This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs.
1005/-);
Ex. PW-20/17 (entry dated 23.11.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.67) . This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs. 670/-); Ex. PW-20/18 (entry dated 2.12.95 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.70). This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs.
6579.33 paisa) Ex. PW-20/19 (entry dated 8.2.96 in the aforesaid register Ex.P1/31-B ( Page No.87) . This pertains to the sale of trading items to K.B. Contractors for the amount of Rs. 624/-); Ex. PW-20/20 (entry dated 8.2.96 at Page No.87 for the amount of Rs. 7198/-);
PW-21 Sh. Moti He joined Ex. PW-21/1 (estimated draft at Page 7 of the Lal Military Engineer above said file of Loundary Plant for 860 Service in the Beded of R&R Hospital Delhi Cant. It was year 1964 as a issued by Mr. K.K. Karihaloo);
Grade-I Ex. PW-21/2 (page 42 of this file is a ION
Engineer. He dated 6.10.94 issued by Sh. K.K. Karihaloo
was transferred that make of the firm is not as per specified in
to SO-III and the tender.
remained there Ex. PW-21/3 (ION dated 6.10.94 at page
from July 1994 no.41 issued by Sh. K.K. Karihaloo submitted
till his retirement to E-8 Section containing comments of M/s. on 30.6.1996 BTC Loundary Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd) Ex. PW-21/4 (ION of E-4 dated 6.10.94 at page no.40 addressed to E-8 issued by Sh. K.K. Karihaloo mentioning observations on technical bid submitted by M/s. K.B. Contractor dated 26.9.94. Details are mentioned in Para A to G);
Ex. PW-21/5 (ION dated 29.7.94 at page no. 43 of E-8 Section marked to E-4 Section relating to Provision of Laundary Plant to R&R Hospital Delhi Cant wherein a copy of letter no.MMC/94/150/429 dated 16.7.94 alongwith the enclosures was forwarded for comments to E-4 Section. It is signed by Sh. Satish Chander at point A. Ex. PW-21/6 ION of E-2 dated 6.12.94 at page no. 63 issued by Sh. D.S. Saxena SE marked to E-4 Section regarding approval. Laundary Plant and for amount of Rs. 1 Crore 21 lakh);
Page 19 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-21/7 letter dated 2.12.94 Page 63A addressed to Chief Engineer issued by Director of Works Sh. S.S. Gulati. It is clarifying administration issues regarding costing etc.);
Ex. PW-21/8 The letter dated 13.12.94); Ex. PW-21/9 (The letter dated 23.11.94 regarding details of prices of equipments of Laundary Plant sent by Sh. M.Z. Lah SE); Ex. PW-21/10 (ION dated 23.12.94 Page 67 of D-3 written by E-4 Section showing the quantity of items required as approved by the DGMS.
Ex. PW-21/11 (ION dated 1312.94 from E-8 Section to E-4 Section regarding KBC Contractors with regard to clarifications as asked for on technical bid);
Ex. PW-21/12 (letter dated 6.12.94 (Page 65A of D-3, total 5 sheets) of K.B. Contractors clarifying conditions of the contract); Ex. PW-21/13 (ION dated 28.11.94 from E-4 Section to E-8 Section for clarification required to be furnished by the contractor); Ex. PW-21/14 (letter dated 29.11.94 addressed to Directorate General of Medical Services Army HQ intimating them the provisions which are being made in the tender about the machinery from A to J);
Ex. PW-21/15 (ION dated 20.2.95 addressed to E-8 Section wherein clarification regarding rates and quotations received from K.B. Contractor have been intimated to E-8 Section);
Ex. PW-21/16 (ION dated 4.3.95 from E-4 Section to E-8 Section signed by Mr. M.Z. Lah SO-I at point A intimating to E-8 Section that the Q bid had been scrutinized and the amount without optional items worked out to Rs. 67.62 lacs);
Ex. PW-21/17 (letter dated 6.3.95 received from Commander Works Engineer (CWE) Delhi Cant regarding provision of water supply for the Laundary Plant);
Ex. PW-21/18 (ION dated 7.3.95 received from E-8 Section in reply to E-4 Section's letter date 4.3.95 seeking further clarifications from E-4 Section. This letter was signed by Sh. N.B. Singh Superintending Surveyer of Works (SSW) at point A);
Page 20 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-21/19 (file D-5 no. 26223/IX/E-2 Planning (RRH) Volume-I regarding correspondence on Laundary Plant from E-2 Section to various officers/sections); Ex. PW-21/20 (letter dated 10.10.94 addressed to DGMS HQ regarding furniture items being procured for the Laundary Plant, copy of which endorsed to E-2 Planning); Ex. PW-21/D1 (D-17 is the annexures in respect of laundry plant showing the cost of landry plant machinery as sanctioned in 1987 as also the latest price revised in 1993); Ex. PW-21/D2 (letter dated 14.05.92 containing details rearding shifting of laundry plant);
Ex. PW-21/D3 (letter dated 18.02.1993 written by Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone to Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandi Mandir mentioning that on 18th February, 1993 there was no proposal for a new laundary plant to be provided at R&R Hospital, Delhi Cantt.); Ex. PW-21/D4 ( Draft Schedule A);
Ex. PW-21/D5 (The ION dated 07.05.1994); Ex. PW-21/D6 (letter from E-In-C's Branch dated 19.05.1994 to Director General Medical Services (DGMS));
Ex. PW-21/D7 (the photocopy of brochure along with covering note dated 01.06.1994 received from DGMS to E-In-C's Branch); Ex. PW-21/D8 (letter dated 06.07.1994 from CWE RRH addressed to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-21/D9 (letter dated 25.07.1994 addressed to Army Headquarter wherein their decision with regard to capacity rating etc. of laundry equipment was sought for from E-In- C's Branch);
Ex. PW-21/D10 (letter from E-In-C's Branch dated 09.08.1994 addressed to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-21/D11 (letter dated 07.09.1994 of E- In-C's Branch to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone containing directions with regard to framing of tender and finalizing the list of laundry equipment required);
Ex. PW-21/D12 (ION dated 12.10.1994 of E-2 (Planning) addressed to E-4 Section signed by D.S. Saxena SE(SG) enclosing therein copies of letters dated 11.10.1994 from E-in- C's Branch);
Page 21 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-21/D13 (ION dated 28.10.1994 from, Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone addressed to E-in- C's Branch signed by A-5 S.K. Shangari wherein the details regarding laundry plant and projected cost thereof was intimated to them);
Ex. PW-21/D14 (letter dated 28.10.1994 from E-in-C's Branch to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone signed by Col. T.K. Mittal asking for details sought for by them for progressing the tender on top priority);
Ex. PW-21/D15 (letter dated 23.11.1994 from Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone to E-in-C's Branch signed by A6 M.Z. Lah, forwarding the details of cost of tender);
Ex. PW-21/D16 (letter dated 19.12.1994 from Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone to E-in-C's Branch, Army Headquarter signed by Sh. D.S. Saxena, SE(SG) seeking clearance for acceptance of tender for mechanical laundry plant);
Ex. PW-21/D17 (letter dated 10.02.1995 addressed to E-in-C Branch, Army Headquarter, wherein clarification regarding mattress sterilizer was sought from them); Ex. PW-21/D18 (ION dated 10.02.1995 from E-2 (Planning) to E-8 Section and copy of E-4 Section signed by Sh. D.S. Saxena, SE(SG) at point A intimating the availability of funds for accepting the tender);
Ex. PW-21/D19 (Folio 78 of D-3 which is an ION from E-8 Section to E-4 Section signed by Sh. H.R. Sharma at point A asking for scrutiny of Q Bids opened);
Ex. PW-21/D20 (Folio 90 of D-3 which is an ION dated 01/06 April 1995 sent to E-8 Section wherein photocopies of noting sheets of this file were sent);
Ex. PW-21/D21 (ION dated 08.05.1995 from E-2 Section to E-8 Section and copy to E-4 Section wherein availability of funds for acceptance of tender was conveyed and E-4 Section was asked to forward the draft technical sanction for acceptance of tender); Ex. PW-21/D22 (Three noting sheets);
Page 22 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-22 Sh. M.M In the year 1994 Ex. PW-22/1 (letter dated 12.09.1994 from Makkar to 31.10.1996 he CWE, RRH, Delhi Cantt., addressed to Chief was posted in Engineer Delhi Zone forwarding therein the the office of minutes of meeting of project Cell meeting Chief Engineer, headed by GOC, Delhi Area); Delhi Zone as Ex. PW-22/2 (copy of minutes of meeting); SO-II (Planning). Ex. PW-22/3 (letter dated 21.02.1994 from E-II Planning CWE, RRH addressed to Chief Engineer was a Central Delhi Zone intimating that new laundry plant Coordinating was required to be installed);
Section and Ex. PW-22/4 (ION from E-4 Section to E-8
specialized Section copy of which was sent to E-2
electrical, Planning);
mechanical Ex. PW-22/5 (letter dated 02.04.1994 from
engineering CWE RRH to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone
projects are stating therein that the planning action be
dealt with by E-4 initiated for provision of laundry plant or else
Section. the same be delegated to CWE RRH for
action by them);
Ex. PW-22/6 (statement dated 07.04.1994 addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone); Ex. PW-22/7 (ION dated 07.05.1994 from E-4 Section to E-2 Planning and copy to E-8 issued by Sh. Karihaloo signed at point A); Ex. PW-22/8 (photocopy of letter dated 13.08.1994 of M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Co. which was duly received by E-2 Section on 22.08.1994);
Ex. PW-22/9 (ION dated 07.10.1994);
Ex. PW-22/10 (letter dated 30.09.1994); Ex. PW-22/11 (ION dated 29.04.1994 addressed to E-IV Section);
Ex. PW-22/12 (The document is a note from DGMS to E-in-C's branch);
PW23 Sh. Ram From 1992 to Ex. PW-23/1 (D-16 is the file relating to the
Adhar middle of 1996 installation of Laundry Plants in R & R
Dubey he was posted in Hospital);
Engineer in Ex. PW-23/2 (letter dated 9.8.94 addressed to
Chief's Branch Chief Engineer Delhi Zone regarding
as a Staff Officer Brochures of M/s. Stefab Commercial Grade-I Utility. Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi);
After that he was Ex. PW-23/3 & Ex.PW-23/4 (letters of Army
posted with Hospital dated 15.6.94 and DGMS Letter
Chief Engineer dated 5.7.94);
Design and Ex. PW-23/5 (letter dated 20.10.94 addressed
Consultancy, to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone regarding
Puna. provision of Laundry Plant; R& R Hospital
Delhi Cantt);
Ex. PW-23/6 (letter dated 11.10.94 addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone);
Page 23 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-23/7 (letter dated 22.9.94 addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-23/8 (letter dated 7.9.94 addressed to Directorate General Medical Services (Army); Ex. PW-23/9 (letter dated 7.9.94 addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone with regard to provision of Laundry Plant R & R Hospital Delhi Cantt);
Ex. PW-23/10 (letter dated 27.7.94);
Ex. PW-23/11 (letter dated 19.5.94);
Ex. PW-23/12 (letter dated 21.4.94);
Ex. PW-23/13 ( letter dated 17.1.94);
Ex. PW-23/14 (letter dated 9.11.93);
Ex. PW-23/15 (letter dated 28.10.94 vide wich Sh. Shangari has intimated that the project cost of Laundry Plant is Rs. 60 lac which has been worked out on the basis of market rates verified from the trade);
Ex.PW-23/16 (letter dated 23.11.94 addressed to Engineer in Chief Branch (E-2 Army/WC) Kashmir House DHQPO New Delhi);
Ex. PW-23/17 (letter dated 29.1194);
Ex. PW-23/D1 (Minutes of meeting dated 16.06.93);
Ex. PW-23/D2 (letter dated 01.06.94, vide which brouchure was sent to project officer of R&R Hospital);
Ex. PW-23/D3 (letter dated 15.06.94, vide which Lt. Col. Bhimwal has recommended the equipments of Stefab);
Ex. PW-23/D4 (letter dated 05.07.94, wherein it is mentioned that the recommendations of the project officer R&R Hospital may be included in the final list of equipments);
Ex.PW-23/D5 (letter dated 28.10.94, addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone asking for details once again);
Ex. PW-23/D6 (letter dated 20.12.94 from ENC Branch to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone signed by Col. Mittal at point A, wherein the break-up details of Mechanical Laundry Plant costing Rs. 68 lac approximately submitted by Delhi Zone has been examined and found to be in order);
Ex. PW-23/D7 (letter dated 30.1.95);
Ex. PW-23/D8 (letter dated 13.1.2009); Ex. PW-23/D9 (letter from Chief Engineer Delhi Zone addressed to ENC Branch wherein it was stated that the AE's had been prepared);
Page 24 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-24 Sh. D.S. He remained Ex. PW-24/1 (ION dated 27.3.90 from E-4 Saxena posted as SO-I Section wherein E-4 Section asked E-2 Planning in the Planning Section to take action regarding office of Chief getting details for laundry plant from Engineer Engineer Delhi in Chief Branch);
Zone MES from June, 92 to Ex. PW-24/2 (minute sheet dated 7.4.94 December, 95. wherein the position regarding the laundry He was plant tender was explained);
transferred on promotion as Ex. PW-24/3 (letter dated 16.4.94); Addl. Chief Engineer in Ex. PW-24/4 (Service note dated 19.5.94 from Chief Engineer Engineering Chief Branch to Directorate Navy Bombay General of Medical Services);
Ex. PW-24/5 (ION dated 16.5.94);
Ex. PW-24/D1 (ION dated 20.07.94 from E-2 Planning to E-4 section wherein DGMC);
Ex. PW-24/D2 (ION dated 07.03.95 from E-8 Section addressed to E-4 Section asking for position of financial ability of funds);
Ex. PW-24/D3 (ION dated10.02.95 from E-2 Planning Section addressed to E-8 Section which clarifies the position regarding availability of funds);
Ex. PW-24/D4 (ION dated 08.05.95 from E-2 Planning addressed to E-8 Section, whereby clear availabiliy of funds was communicated and E-4 section was asked to prepare draft technical section);
Ex. PW-24/D5 (Minute sheet put up to chief engineer through ACE Planning for signing the technical sanction);
PW-25 Sh. In the year 1994 Ex. PW-25/1 (seizure memo (part of D-39)
Khyali he was working dated 8.7.96);
Ram as Liasion
Officer of M/s. Ex. PW-25/2 (carbon copy of invoice no. 22
Delhi Brass and dated 3.2.1995);
Metal Works Pvt.
Ltd. at F-88, Ex. PW-25/3 (copy of ledger account from
Okhla Industrial 1.4.94 to 31.3.95 of Delhi Brass and Metal Area, Phase-I, Works Ltd.);
New Delhi Page 25 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-26 Sh. R.K. He has retired Ex.PW-26/1 (site inspection memo);
Aggarwal from the service of CPWD, R.K. Puram in the year 2002 as Executive Engineer (Electrical). He further deposed that he has D-40 is site inspection memo dated 11.09.1996 of site laundry plant, R&R hospital, Subroto Park, New Delhi.
PW-27 Sh. He joined CPWD
Vasudev in the year 1962
as JE. He
remained posted
in CDO CPWD
Division during
the period from
January 1996 till
sometime
October 2000 as
Ex. Engineer D-
VIII/CDO.
He retired from
appropriate
authority Income
Tax in
September
2002.
Page 26 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-28 Sh. He is the Jarnail proprietor of Singh Matharoo Manufacturing Company, M/195, Sector 3, Bawana, New Delhi-39. This firm was started by his father in 1979. Earlier to that his father used to work with M/s.
Snowhite Engineers Pvt.
Ltd. which was earlier situated at Anand Parbat Industrial Area and later shifted to Okhla Industrial Area.
PW-29 Sh. Manager (HR) Ex. PW-29/1 (Authority letter for deposing in Rajender Shahi Export the present case); Ahuja House Pvt. Ltd. Ex. PW-29/2 (Letter dated 24.07.1996 vide Sector - 28, which information regarding the laundry Faridabad. equipment purchased and installed in the company alongwith the copies of the invoices was given);
PW-30 Sh. Manager Ex. PW-30/1 (authorization letter);
Dinesh Accounts Ex. PW-30/2 (letter dated 22.07.1996
Rawat Venky's India whereby information in reference to CBI
Ltd. Formerly letter dated 05.07.1996 regarding
Western investigation of the present case was
Hatchery Pvt. given);
Ltd. WTC 426-
428 Babar Road,
Connaught
place, New
Delhi.
PW31 Brig. Tej (Retired Director Ex. PW-31/D1 (Misc. correspondence file of Karan Utilities at R&R Hospital at Army Headquarters ENC Mittal Engineer in Branch vide which work of installation of Chiefs Branch, laundry plant was initially stalled due to Army HQs New financial limitations);
Delhi. Ex.PW31/D2 (letter signed by witness written in response to letter Ex.PW31/D1);
Page 27 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-31/D3 (letter dated 6.9.93 written by wintess to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone asking them to prepare revised estimates of E/M services based on details given to them by this office);
Ex. PW-31/D4 (note sent vide Ietter dated 03.01.94 confirming that the major E/M services were planned and tendered for in consultation with E in C's branch);
Ex. PW-31/D5 (letter dated 1.8.94 whereby DGMS have sent a copy of letter dated 15.6.94 attached to this folio from army hospital in which the army hospital project officer had given his comments on the Stefab equipments for incorporation in this work); Ex. PW-31/D6 (letter dated 2.12.94 written by Army Headquarters E in C Branch to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone wherein it was stated that in view of the available savings and tolerances no corrigendum would be required);
PW-32 Sh. M.L. He was posted Ex. PW-32/1 & Ex. PW-32/2 (Sanction Verma as Desk Officer orders in respect of Sh. S.K. Shangari, in the Vigilance Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah and Sh. K.K. Karihaloo Division of M/o (D-60) and D-61 against Brig. A.K. Soni and Defence, Delhi Sh. N.B. Singh);
at the relevant time.
PW-33 Sh. V.K. He was working Ex. PW-33/1 (the letter alongwith with the Aggarwal as Head Training enclosure containing details of the machines and purchased);
Development in Pratibha Syntex Ltd. At Pthampur, District Dhar M.P. PW34 Dr. K.S. (Retired Col. Ex. PW-34/1 (statement of case for Bhimwal From the Army installation of mechanical laundry in R&R Medical Core) Hospital);
posted at Army Ex. PW-34/2 (letter dated 31.3.94 from Major Hospital, New N.T. Colaco, DCWE E/M o/o CWE R&R Delhi. Hospital to Army Hospital qua visit of Major General Tarsem Kumar Commandant at R&R Hospital);
Ex. PW-34/3 (letter dated 21.4.92 written by Lt. Col. R.K. Bhaskar Director Health Services to ENC branch regarding provisioning of laundry plant at Army Hospital, Delhi Cant);
Page 28 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-34/4 (letter dated 19.5.94 from Sh. R.A. Dubey SOI Works from ENC branch to Director General Medical Services);
PW-35 Sh. Vice President
Dinesh (Finance) in M/s.
Saxena Radnik Exports,
412, Osian
Building, 12,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
PW-36 Sh. Vinod At the relevant Ex. PW-36/1 (letter dated 22.3.94 written by
Kumar time, he was DGMS Army addressed to Army Hospital,
AEE and posted Delhi Cantt and copy endorsed to Chief
as SO-III, Engineer, Delhi Zone as well as CWE R&R
Planning in E-2, Hospital specifying that the correspondence
Planning Section regarding alteration/specification and
of the office of confirmations be routed through Directorate
Chief Engineer General to facilitate centralized record and
Navy, Mumbai. coherent functioning in respect of R&R
Hospital);
Ex. PW-36/2 (letter dated 22.3.94 written by DGMS Army addressed to Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt and copy endorsed to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone as well as CWE R&R Hospital specifying that the correspondence regarding alteration/specifications and confirmations be routed through Directorate General to facilitate centralized record and coherent functioning in respect of R&R Hospital) Ex.PW36/3 (ION dated 24.05.1994);
Ex. PW-36/4 (letter dated 05.07.1994 addressed to DGMS, AG's Branch written by Mr. K.K. Karihaloo, SO-II);
Ex. PW-36/5 (ION dated 07.09.1994);
PW-37 Sh. He was Sales Ex. PW-37/1 (letter dated 13.12.93 addressed Yogesh Executive Stefab to Chief Engineer, MES Delhi qua laundry Kandhari India. plant for 860 bedded R&R hospital);
Ex. PW-37/2 (quotation accompanying letter dated 13.12.93);
Ex. PW-37/3 (page 19 of D-22 Ex.PW1/10, quotation given to Mr. K.L. Khanna of M/s. K.B. Contractors);
Ex. PW-37/4 (lay out of the system bearing an endorsement to the effect that the same was submitted to Mr. K.L. Khanna on 2.8.95 and explained to him);
Ex. PW-37/5 (quotation dated 21.11.1994 alongwith brochure marked E-4 submitted to Page 29 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 the Chief-Engineer Delhi Zone, Delhi Cantt. Delhi by Stefab India Ltd.);
Ex. PW-37/6 (164 Statement of Sh. Yogesh Kandhari);
PW-38 Sh. He was working Ex. PW-38/1 (Search warrant);
Shaikh as Inspector in
Qamar ACU-I Branch of
CBI, New Delhi.
PW-39 Sh. IO of the case Ex. PW-39/A (the internal folio of D-2 page 24
Suman (3 sheets). This is the document for award of
Kumar contract for provision of Laundry Plant at R&R
Hospital, Delhi Cant. To M/s. K. B. Contractor by Sh. A. K. Soni, Chief Engineer Delhi Zone for a contract sum of Rs. 73,59,248.00/-); Ex. PW-39/2 (D-4 internal folio bearing No. 13, which was a letter dated 16.07.1994 of Matharoo Manufacturing Company address to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-39/3 (D-4 internal folio bearing No. 14which was an inter officer note (ION) of E-8 Section dated 29.07.1994 of Matharoo Manufacturing Company addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone is Ex.PW39/3);
Ex. PW-39/4 (D-4 internal folio bearing No. 24was a telegram dated 20.09.1994 of BTC Laundry Equipment Company addressed to Chief Engineer Head Qurter tor Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-39/5 (D-4 internal folio bearing No. 33is a letter dated 13.11.1994 of Matharoo Manufacturing Company addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone is marked as PW4/mark A and now Ex.PW39/5);
Ex. PW-39/6 (D-4 internal folio bearing No. 62(two sheets) which is a letter dated 28.04.1995 of K. B. Contractor addressed to Chief Engineer Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-39/7 (file bearing No. 26223 of E-2 (Planning Section) which was received from MES Delhi Zone);
Ex. PW-39/8 & Ex. PW-39/9 (Folder files containing D-23 (1) and D-23 (2) which are Q-
Bid submitted by M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing company and M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd);
Ex. PW-39/10 (price bid submitted by M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Co. offering a rate of Rs.47.87 lac for provisions of Laundry Plant for tender no. CEDZ-7/94-95);
Ex. PW-39/11 (letter dated 23.10.1996);
Page 30 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. PW-39/12 to Ex. PW-39/15 (documents relating to purchase of laundtry equipments forwarded through a letter D-39 (iii)); Ex. PW-39/16 (D-39 (vi) is a letter addressed to SP, CBI, New Delhi through which the details of expenditure incurred by Modelama Exports were forwarded);
Ex. PW-39/17 & Ex.PW39/18 (D-39 (vii) which is a letter dated 11.07.1996 through which the details of expenditure incurred by M/s. Cotlon India Ltd. were forwarded); Ex. PW-39/19 (D-39 (ix) is a letter dated 10.07.1996 of M/s. Cross World Corporation forwarding the documents relating to purchase of laundry equipment from M/s. Stefab India Ltd);
Ex. PW-39/20 (Copies of the documents forwarded by M/s. Cross World Corporation were enclosed with the said letter);
Ex. PW-39/21 (D-39 (x) is a letter dated 15.07.1996 of Sewa International Fashions vide which documents related to purchase of laundry equipments by M/s. Sewa International from STEFAB India Ltd. were forwarded);
Ex. PW-39/22 (D-39 (xiii) is a letter dated 16.07.1996 of M/s. Fashion Expression relating to purchase of lundry equipments by them from M/s. STEFAB India Ltd.);
Ex. PW-39/23 (D-39 (xvi) is a letter dated 15.07.1996 vide which statement of laundry equipments purchased by Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. was forwarded);
Ex. PW-39/24 (Annexure B is a statement evaluation of actual work executed at site); Ex. PW-39/D1 to Ex. PW-39/D7 (are seven notices u/s 160 Cr.P.C. issued by Sh.
Parshotam Lal the then DSP during preliminary inquiry);
Ex. PW-39/DA (letter dated 14.10.96 vide wich the file pertaining to the procurement of laundry plant was called by SP CBI from E-in- C Branch);
PW-40 Sh. Ld. MM posted
Rajesh in Tis Hazari
Aggarwal Courts, Delhi
Page 31 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW-41 Sh. V.K. Partner of M/s.
Saxena Fashion
Expressions, D-
9/2, Okhla
Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New
Delhi- 20.
Page 32 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Vide order dated 06.10.2008, Ex. P1/1 (FIR); admission/denial of documents was Ex. P1/2 (File of laundry plant to R&R conducted and accusd persons hospital); admitted certain documents. Ex. P1/3 (Letter of Yashwant Kumar E.E.);
Ex. P1/4 (Letter of Sh. K.S. Bhimwal, Project Officer);
Ex. P1/5 (Letter of Sh. K.S. Bhimwal, Project Officer);
Ex. P1/6 (Letter to chief of the army staff); Ex. P1/8 (letter by K.K. Karihaloo to M/s. Stefab);
Ex. P1/8A (challan);
Ex. P1/9 (Various Receipts);
Ex. P1/10 (Order for laundry equipment); Ex. P1/11 (Folder containing documents of laundry plants to R&R Hospital);
Ex. P1/12 (File relating charter of duties of chief engg. Organization);
Ex. P1/14 (File regarding provision of laundry Plant to R&R Hospital);
Ex. P1/15 (File regarding C.W.E.);
Ex. P1/16 (Statement of Laundry Plant Project 1995-1996 with annexures);
Ex. P1/17 (Challan file of Rajan & Company); Ex. P1/1/18 (Order letter of K.B. Contractor); Ex. P1/19 (Letter by Mandeep Mushroom Ltd. to Insp. Suman Kumar);
Ex. P1/19A to C (Invoices);
Ex. P1/20 (Letter by R.N. Oswal Co. to Suman Kumar Insp. CI with annexures);
Ex. P1/21 (Stefab Quotations Rates);
Ex. P1/22 (Search List dated 09.05.96); Ex. P1/23 (Running Account Receipts file of K.B. Constructions);
Ex. P1/24 (Search list dated 09.05.96); Ex. P1/25A (Account statement);
Ex. P1/28 & A (Indo Asiatic Engineers Sale Bill File);
Ex. P1/30 (Seizure memo dated 08.06.96); Ex. P1/31 (Seizure memo dated 08.06.96); Ex. P1/31A (Punjab Pipe Bills file);
Ex. P1/32 (Seizure memo dated 17.06.96); Ex. P1/32A (Statement of account of Saroj Electrical);
Ex. P1/33 (File of the Naval HQ of O/o the Chief Engineer Delhi Zone);
Ex. P1/33(i) & A (whole file pertaining to Matharoo Manufacturing Co.);
Ex. P1/34 (seizure memo dt. 08.07.96); Ex. P1/34A (Agreement at R&R hospital); Ex. P1/34B (Agreement at R&R hospital);
Page 33 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Ex. P1/35 (Letter to Suman Kumar Insp. CBI by Sh. K.S. Bhimwal);
Ex. P1/36 (letter regarding investigation to Insp. Suman Kumar);
Ex. P1/37 (Final bill file of Laundry Plant); Ex. P1/38 (Invoices for the month of June & July of Thermax);
Ex. P1/39 (Stefab Laundry equipment for R&R hospital file);
13. PLEA OF ALL ACCUSED PERSON UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
1. PLEA OF BRIGADIER A.K. SONI (A1) :-
A1 took plea that equipment of BTC make was not approved by E-in- C's Branch and DGMS Army Headquarter and its laundry plant was of unspecified make, hence, could not be considered as per rules. He further took plea that eligibility of applicants and noting Ex.PW4/1 was prepared and recommended by PW5/Sh. Satish Chandra. He also took plea that all the parties had already applied for tender before he joined his office in July 1993. Schedule-A Ex.PW4/2E mentioning specification of equipments required for laundry project was not implemented as the same was converted into turnkey job. Schedule-A was not published by PW5. He further took plea that during scrutiny it was brought out by E-4 Section to the notice of E-2 Planning Section that there was variation in equipments demanded by Army Hospital and given in the revised sanction of the Government. Accordingly, matter was taken up with E-in-C's Branch and the same was brought to the notice of DGMS Army Headquarters vide letter dated 19.05.1994 i.e. Ex.PW23/11 and Ex.PW24/4. He further took plea that as per tender procedure the then SW i.e. PW5/Sh. Satish Chandra was empowered to send a set of tender document to commotion works Engineer, R&R hospital and Garrison Engineer in the work of laundry plant. PW5 was also empowered to ask for required information from the concerned branches and accordingly he had signed Schedule-A. As per provision of tender policy of DGMS the Page 34 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 requirement of the user should be mentioned in Schedule-A and accordingly hot water boiler was mentioned in Schedule-A by official of E-4 Section. The equipments of M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Matharooo Manufacturing Company makes were neither approved by technical committee headed by PW31/Brigadier T.K. Mittal nor by user/Army Hospital nor by E-in-C's Branch nor by DGMS Army Headquarter. The makes of M/s. Snow White and M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. were approved by Army Hospital, E-
in-C's Branch and DGMS Army Headquarter, on the basis of survey carried by a technical team headed by Brigadier T.K. Mittal (PW31) in April 1993. As per provision, the technical bid was being scrutinized by specialist E-4 and E-8 Section and in consultation with E-in-C's Branch and DGMS Army Headquarter. Accordingly, letters Ex.PW21/12 and Ex.PW23/6 were sent by PW23 and thereafter, letters were sent to DGMS for approval of equipments list. The equipment was approved vide Ex.PW22/10, Ex.PW23/5 and PW23/7 by Army Hospital, the then project officer i.e. PW34/Col. K.S. Bhimwal and Col. Bhaskar, Director DGMS Army Headquarter. A1 further took plea that steam boiler was part of DGMS policy and revised administrative approval given by MOD, Government of India. Accordingly, PW21 vide his letter Ex.PW21/10 and Ex.PW4/2K-11 confirmed approval of this boiler by E-in-C's Branch. Tenders were issued to M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. based upon their application, but they did not quote for the tender as they worked only on the advance payments. Government conditions and tender conditions did not suit them, which was so explained by PW6 also. Issue of tender was done by PW5 as per eligibility check and performance recommended by him, in performance of his duties as mentioned in Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW4/DA. A1 referred to regulation 427 for approval of specified/ Page 35 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 approved makes of M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. and M/s. Snow White by Army Hospital, DGMS, E-in-C's Branch and Army Headquarter. He further took plea that T-bid was under scrutiny by specialist sections i.e. E-4 and E-8 and approval of E-in-C's Branch as well as DGMS Army Headquarter was required before taking the final decision. The equipments of M/s. Stefeb India Ltd. and M/s. Snow White were the best makes at the relevant time, which was so confirmed by various PWs. Similarly, the boiler of Thermax make was the best make in the country, which was approved by E-in-C's Branch vide Ex.PW21/10. Amendments in the specifications in the tender were made by PW4 on the basis of letter sent by PW1 and as per requirement of tender approved by Army Hospital as well as DGMS vide Ex.PW22/10 and Ex.PW23/5. A1 further took plea that proposed amendments were made by PW21/Sh. M.L. Sapori in pursuance of letter dated 11.10.1994 sent by PW23. Q-bid was open and approved after finalization of technical bid and approval of equipment given by PW34. Reasonability of scrutiny of rate was given by PW21, PW4 and Col. Malhotra of ACE Branch vide note Ex.PW4/2K-23 and 24, Ex.PW4/2K-26 and Ex.PW21/T-22. Regarding optional items preferred in Ex.PW4/2K-21, Col. Malhotra from ACE Planning had met MD of M/s. Stefeb company on 30.03.1995, who recommended optional items like storage oil, water tanks, compressor etc. to be included in the tender. The rates accepted were lower than sanction given by PW31 vide letter Ex.PW23/D6 and Ex.PW21/D1 as well as Ex.PW1/6. E-in-C's Branch vide letter dated 05.07.1996 i.e. Ex.PW23/T8 informed JS (E) CVO, Ministry of Defence i.e. the tender was examined and there was no irregularity or loss to the State. The Ministry of Defence had agreed with the recommendation of the Army Headquarters and conveyed the same to CBI vide letter dated Page 36 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 26.07.1996. Even PW4, PW5, PW21, PW22, PW24 and PW31 stated in the court that there was no irregularity of violation of any role in the contract. There was no rule for republication of advertisement. Hence, PW5 did not give fresh advertisement after 20.07.1990. Schedule-A dated 05.04.1994 i.e. Ex.PW4/2D was changed to a turn key job of 2000 kgs/ 8 hrs. shift and the cost of Rs.25 lakh was not advertised nor anyone represented against this cost. As per revised Government Sanction of 1993, two options were given. First option was to install new plant out of savings from the project and the alternative option was to shift M/s. Snow White plant from Base Hospital to the new R&R Hospital. Mr. S.S. Gulati, Director E-2 Army vide letter dated 02.12.1994 i.e. Ex.PW21/7 and vide Ex.PW31/D6 confirmed savings in the project. Therefore, new plant was installed. The rates shown by PW7 in the bills were only for supply whereas the contractor in this case had to do additional job of installation commissioning supervision, synchronization with various components, testing and maintenance for one year. Therefore, there was no irregularity in the contract awarded to the contractor. The tender in this case included design, supply, taxes, transportation, installation, commissioning, synchronization of various components, supervision, testing, defect liability period of one year and training of staff. According to A1, Delhi Zone had no role to play in selection of equipments. The scope of supply only, supply and fix and a turn key project could not be compared or equated. IO did not challenge veracity of any of the bills/ vouchers of the contractor or the payments made by Major Prabhakar and there was no irregularity or violation of any rule, regulation or procedure.
2. PLEA OF OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS :-
Other accused persons also took plea almost on same lines in their Page 37 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded that IO had falsely implicated them on flimsy and hypothetical grounds. This project of MLP was dealt with by several departments/ sections of MES and Ministry of Defence, wherein number of officers were involved. Some of them were produced as witnesses by IO, while many others were not even examined by IO. None of these witnesses had supported the allegations of CBI. IO had not even considered the bylaws, norms and procedures before chargesheeting the accused persons in this case. IO himself was the inquiry officer and after registration of FIR he investigated this case, which was illegal. IO had named Col. K.S. Bhimwal and Deepak Arora in the FIR, but they were made witnesses in this case without following procedure under Section 306/307 IPC.
3. PLEA OF SH. K.K. KARIHALU (A3) :-
A3 also took plea that he was already transferred before the finalization of technical bid and its approval by DGMS and thus, he had no role in the award of this contract.
4. PLEA OF SH. K.L. KHANNA (A4) :-
A4 took plea that he had not completed this project during investigation conducted by IO. IO did not take any step to stop any work or payments being made to him because he did not find anything wrong in this project. But he falsely implicated all the accused persons on the basis of pick and choose manner. This accused further explained the work done by him related to this project.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS :-
14.Before I start analysing the evidence and arguments, it would be appropriate to refer to the charges framed against the accused persons.
It was alleged against accused Brig. A.K. Soni, Sh. N.B. Singh, Sh. K.K. Page 38 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Karihaloo, Sh. K.L. Khanna, Sh. S.K. Shanghari and Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah that during the period of 1993-1995 Brig. A.K. Soni being Chief Engineer, MES, Delhi Zone; Sh. N.B. Singh being Superintendent Surveyor of works; Sh. K.K. Karihaloo being SO-II; Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah being SO-I and Sh. S.K. Sangari being ACE (Plg) all posted at MES Delhi Zone entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Sh. K.L. Khanna, who was proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors, to cheat Government of India.
15.It was further alleged against them that in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy aforesaid accused persons committed omissions in awarding contract of supply, installation, erection and commissioning of a mechanical laundry plant at R & R. Hospital Delhi Cantt. and accused Brig. A.K. Soni was assigned the task of executing the said project. It was alleged that accused Brig. A.K. Soni with dishonest intention and in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons did not issue fresh advertisement deliberately for inviting tender for designing, supplying, installation and commissioning of 'Laundry Plant' and issued tender documents to M/s. Stefab India Ltd. on their request, without considering the note dated 21.04.1994 of Sh. Satish Chander SW of E-8 Section, MES for issuance of fresh advertisement.
16.It was further alleged that accused Brig. A.K. Soni mentioned the product of M/s. Stefab or M/s. Snow White in tender documents, but specification was described only of the machinery of M/s. Stefab, just to avoid other firms in participating the bids. It was further alleged that on 07.09.1994 accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo prepared schedule 'A', which was not as per requirement of user, as mentioned in letter dated 07.04.1994 of Col. K.S. Bhimwal, Project Officer and only mentioned "Hot Water Boiler". But he did not mention its make and other details and other required accessories and mentioned lower cost of Rs.25 lacs (it was Rs.42 lacs in advertisement of 09.08.1990) to avoid other parties to Page 39 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 apply for bids in order to give undue benefit to co-accused Sh. K.L. Khanna.
17.It was further alleged that accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo prepared a false note dated 06.10.1994 on T-bids of M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Co. that their cases were being considered separately whereas there was no such proposal in MES.
18.It was further alleged that accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo with intention to give undue benefit to co-accused Sh. K.L. Khanna (who was proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors), dishonestly recommended for seeking clarifications from M/s. K.B. Contractors, although there were deficiencies and defects in the technical bid of M/s. K.B. Contractors. Accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo also falsely mentioned in his note about T- bids of M/s. K.B. Contractors to the effect that "Steam Boiler" of "Thermax" make was mentioned in "Schedule A", whereas neither "Steam Boiler" nor its make "Thermax" was mentioned in "Schedule A"
and accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo had only mentioned "Hot Water Boiler"
in Schedule A.
19.It was further alleged that accused Sh. N.B. Singh earlier made a note dated 13.10.1994 that decision is to be taken whether any other make like BTC and Matharoo are acceptable to user or only Stefab is to be progressed. But later on, in conspiracy with co-accused, Sh. N.B. Singh vide another note dated 05.11.1994 dishonestly desired equipment of the user i.e. "Stefab" as tendered to be supplied by M/s. K.B. Contractors only and E-4 section would require to give reasonability of rates after getting catalogs prices from M/s. Stefab.
20.It was further alleged that accused Sh. K.L. Khanna dishonestly and with intent to cheat MES/ Government of India obtained false quotations of laundry machines of M/s. Stefab India Ltd. form co-accused in MES at Page 40 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 higher and exaggerated rates than the prevailing rates of their products on 21.11.1994 and handed over the same to co-accused in MES.
21.It was further alleged that on 23.11.1994 accused Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah dishonestly prepared a false estimate of cost of Rs.67,91,029 on 23.11.1994 on the basis of false quotation obtained on 21.11.1994 from M/s. Stefab India Ltd. and dishonestly concealed the rates of similar laundry machines of M/s. Stefab obtained in December 1993 and 01.08.1994. Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah did not make an independent enquiry to decide the estimate cost of laundry plant. Accused Brig. A.K. Soni got issued a letter dated 29.12.1994 from his official working under him asking co-accused Sh. K.L. Khanna to send new calculations without any reason and Sh. K.L. Khanna submitted his revised price bids at exaggerated rates of Rs.72,75,248/- dated 20.01.1995.
22.It was further alleged that accused Sh. N.B. Singh on receipt of revised price bid M/s. K.B. Contractors, put his note dated 01.02.1995 that as per tender provision (when only one tender was found valid), tender could be accepted but accepting officer should see the reasonableness of tendered rates and pros and cons of re-tendering and then by referring letter dated 20.01.1995 of co-accused no.4/Sh. K.L. Khanna, Sh. N.B. Singh dishonestly recommended opening of revised Q-bid (price bids) of M/s. K.B. Contractors on 06.02.1995, though earlier Q-bid (price bid) dated 26.09.1994 offered by M/s. K.B. Contractors was only for Rs.32,01,700/-. Accused Sh. S.K. Shanghari also dishonestly agreed with co-accused Sh. N.B. Singh without seeing the reasonableness of tendered rates and pros and cons of re-tendering and accused Brig. A.K. Soni also dishonestly approved the same without examining the reasonableness of tendered rates and pros and cons of re-tendering.
23.It was further alleged that accused Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah prepared a false rate justification report on 23.03.1995 and prepared draft cost schedule Page 41 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 for Rs.73,60,000/- on 01.05.1995 which was approved by accused Brig. A.K. Soni and he also accepted the bid of M/s. K.B. Contractors at exaggerated rates and awarded contract dishonestly and placed work order on 20.05.1995.
24.It was further alleged that accused Brig. A.K. Soni, Sh. N.B. Singh, Sh. K.K.Karihaloo, Sh. S.K. Shanghari and Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah in conspiracy with each other and with co-accused Sh. K.L. Khanna (proprietor of M/s. K.B Contractors) dishonestly made excess payment of Rs. 19,79,357/- to accused no.4/Sh. K.L. Khanna/proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors. Thereby, Brig. A.K. Soni, Sh. N.B. Singh, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo, Sh. K.L. Khanna, Sh. S.K. Shanghari and Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah committed offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
25.It was further alleged that during the period of 1993-1995 accused Brig. A.K. Soni being Chief Engineer, Sh. N.B. Singh being Superintendent Surveyor of works, Sh. K.K. Karihaloo being SO-II, Sh. S.K. Shangari being ACE (Plg) and Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah being SO-I, all posted at MES Delhi Zone, by corrupt or illegal means of by abusing their official position obtained pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.19,79,357/- for themselves and for co-accused Sh K.L. Khanna, who was proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors, in awarding contract of Laundry Plant at R & R Hospital, New Delhi and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
26.It was further alleged against accused Sh. K.L. Khanna that during the period of 1993-1995 he fraudulently or dishonestly induced MES Delhi/ Govt. of India to deliver an amount of Rs.19,79,357 in excess in award of contract of Laundry Plant at R & R Hospital, New Delhi in conspiracy with co-accused persons and thereby he committed an offence Page 42 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 punishable under Section 420 IPC.
ANALYSIS :-
27.To start with the analysis of allegations made against the accused persons, evidence produced by the prosecution and the rival arguments made before the court, I would refer to the statement of case dated 07.04.1994 for installation of mechanical laundry in R&R Hospital, which was prepared by Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal and was approved by Major General Commandant T. Kumar. As per this statement of case, a reference was made to the directions given in the revised scope of work for Army Hospital, vide which existing laundry plant of Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment was to be shifted to R&R Hospital. It was stated that the Base Hospital laundry plant was already vintaged and it lacked capacity to take on the load of Army Hospital. It was further stated that there was need to have a new laundry plant for R&R Hospital. In the justification, it was stated that the new hospital was to be a prestigious, referral and research oriented hospital, demanding top quality support and services. It was further stated that laundry service in a hospital affected the quality of patient care, hence, investment in this plant was critical. It was further stated that the financial effect projected was the barest minimum for a hospital of this kind and size. The expenditure was inescapable and funds were available. Thus, it was stated that a new laundry plant was to be installed through generated savings. Major General Commandant T. Kumar recommended stating that laundry plant for R&R Hospital was an inescapable requirement to provide the best patient care. In this statement of case nine equipments were mentioned for the purpose of aforesaid mechanical laundry plant.
28.I have referred to this statement of case dated 07.04.1994 so as to highlight the importance being given to this project of R&R Hospital by the department. This project was a prestigious project, wherein special Page 43 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 care was being taken to have quality support and services. In the background of above mentioned nature of this project, I shall start with my discussion over each and every limb of allegation made by CBI against the accused persons.
LIMITED CHOICE OF MAKE OF EQUIPMENTS :-
29.The first allegation had been that accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo included the specification of M/s. Stefeb equipments or M/s. Snow White company only in the tender schedule-A and this draft tender schedule-A was dishonestly approved by accused Brigadier A.K. Soni. The arguments made by ld. Sr. PP for CBI as well as IO of the case was that by restricting the options for the make of equipments, the accused persons wanted to extend benefit to accused Sh. K.L. Khanna, who was proprietor of M/s. K.B. Contractors. According to them, this restricted option was not in public interest and MES should have given wide options of the make of equipments, so that various bidders could participate in the process of tender.
30.This allegation appears to have its root in the grievances of two firms namely M/s. BTC Laundry Equipments Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Company, who have been interested for inclusion of equipments produced by them. However, it is undisputed fact that equipments of M/s. Snow White and M/s. Stefeb were treated to be the best laundry equipment at the relevant time.
31.PW1/Sh. K.L. Arora was Managing Director of M/s. BTC Laundry Equipments Company and in his testimony before the court he acknowledged that M/s. Snow White and M/s. Stefeb were the biggest and known names in the country. He further acknowledged that for this project MES had asked for best laundry plant equipments possible. Different officials of MES (Military Engineering Services) i.e. PW4/Sh. Hansh Raj Sharma, PW5/Sh. Satish Chander, PW21/Sh. Moti Lal, Page 44 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 PW22/Sh. M.M. Makkar, PW23/Sh. Ram Aadhar Dubey, PW24/Sh. D.S. Saxena, PW31/ Brigadier T.K. Mittal, PW34/ Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal and PW36/Sh. Vinod Kumar also acknowledged this fact. PW28/Sh. Jarnail Singh was proprietor of M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Company and he also acknowledged that at the relevant time M/s. Stefeb and M/s. Snow White were the leading manufacturers of the laundry equipments. Thus, the limited choice given in the tender documents to provide equipments of these two leading manufacturers, is found to be based on consideration of providing top quality support and services. Giving special attention to the quality cannot be said to be adverse to public interest.
32.Public interest as referred in Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) is not defined in the Act as such, however, High Court of Delhi in the case of Runu Ghosh v. CBI, MANU/DE/6909/2011, dealt with significance of this term for the purpose of offence in question by making following observations :-
"The court, as a consequence has to determine the objective criteria by which acts (of public servants) "without public interest", are to be judged, if mens rea (to obtain pecuniary advantage or valuable thing to another) is not a necessary ingredient. This exercise is essential because in the absence of mens rea (which has been ruled out) the court has to say what "acts" resulting in someone obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing are "without public interest". Obviously the mere fact that a third party obtains pecuniary advantage, or a valuable thing, is insufficient; a supplier of equipment to public servants or offices, a travel agent who makes bookings for a public agency, a businessman or corporate group granted licenses or clearances, by departments or agencies of the Government, would all stand to benefit. Many of these decisions are in fact and all are expected to be in public interest. Therefore, the kind of behavior which amounts to an "act" resulting in someone "obtaining pecuniary advantage" or "valuable thing" "without public interest" needs to be spelt out.
Each action of the State must further the social or economic Page 45 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 goals sought to be achieved by the policy. Therefore, when a public servant's decision exhibits complete and manifest and manifest disregard to public interest with the corresponding result of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, he is fastened with responsibility for "criminal misconduct" under Section 13 (1)
(d) (iii). There is nothing reprehensible in this interpretation because the "act" being "without public interest" is the key, the controlling expression, to this offence. If one contrasts this with "abuse" of office resulting in someone "obtaining"
"pecuniary advantage or valuable thing", it is evident that Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) may or may not entail the act being without public interest. This offence-under Section 13 (1) (d)
(iii) advisedly does not require proof of intent, or mens rea, because what Parliament intended was to punish public servants for acts which were without public interest.
What then is the behavior or act which attracts such opprobrium as to result in criminal responsibility? It is not every act, which results in loss of public interest, or that is contrary to public interest, that is a prosecutable offence. There can be no doubt that all acts prejudicial to public interest, can be the subject matter of judicial review. In those cases, courts consider whether the decision maker transgressed the zone of reasonableness, or breached the law in his action. However, it is only those acts done with complete and manifest disregard to the norms, and manifestly injuries to public interest, which were avoidable, but for the public servant's overlooking or disregarding precautions and not heeding the safeguards he or she was expected to, and with result in peculiary advantage to another that there are prosecutable under Section 13 (1) (d)
(iii). In other words, if the public servant is able to show that he followed all the safeguards and exercise all reasonable precautions having regard to the circumstances, despite which there was loss of public interest, he would not be guilty of the offence. The provision aims at ensuring efficiency, and responsible behavior, as such as it seeks to outlaw irresponsibility in public servant's functioning, which would otherwise go unpunished. The blameworthiness for a completely indefensible act of a public servant, is to be of such degree that it is something that no reasonable man would have done, if he were placed in that position, having regard to all the circumstances. It is not merely a case of Page 46 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 making a wrong choice; the decision should be one such as no one would have taken."
33.Furthermore, it has also come on the record that the equipments of M/s. Stefeb company were selected and recommended after a process of due deliberation between different agencies of Army. DGMS and E-in-C's were also part of this deliberation so as to make a choice. In this respect an official communication sent by Sh. R.A. Dubey (PW23) to DGMS Army vide letter dated 19.05.1994 (Ex.PW21/D6) is relevant to be mentioned here. In this letter Mr. Dubey stated that a brochure received from M/s. Stefeb company during April 1993 and containing their budgetary proposal over technical specifications of laundry equipments etc. was being forwarded for perusal and finalization of list of equipments. In the official note dated 01.06.1994 (Ex.PW21/D7) from DGMS to E-in-C's Branch, it was mentioned that the brochure of M/s. Stefeb was being studied. Thereafter, Major N.T. Colaco Commander Works Engineer, R&R Hospital vide his communication dated 06.07.1994 forwarded the letter dated 15.06.1994 (part of Ex.PW21/D10) received from Army Hospital to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone. The letter dated 15.06.1994 was sent by Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal in the capacity of project officer of R&R Hospital and in this letter he had stated that the brochure of M/s. Stefeb company was studied. He had observed that laundry equipment by M/s. Stefeb was of excellent quality and services. He recommended for supply of equipment list for mechanical laundry by M/s. Stefeb. In the same letter, he also recommended that the order to include installation and after sales service. He further recommended that water supply, electric supply and drainage of the laundry plant be provided as per directions and specification of M/s. Stefeb. He further recommended that contract for establishing the laundry plant should include training of hospital staff in use of the equipments. Thereafter, Lt. Col. Sh. R.K. Bhaskar from DGMS Page 47 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Army vide letter dated 05.07.1994 (part of Ex.PW21/D10) forwarded the letter of Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal to E-in-C's Branch with recommendation to include dry clean machines and flat bed presses, as recommended by Army Hospital. The letters dated 15.06.1994 and 05.07.1994 were thereafter, forwarded by Sh. R.A. Dubey (PW23) on behalf of E-in-C's Branch vide his letter dated 09.08.1994 (part of Ex.PW21/D10) to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone. In his letter, PW23 stated that the letters were being forwarded for progressing the tender at his ends. Accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo had sent a letter dated 07.09.1994 (Ex.PW5/DC) to DGMS thereby mentioning description of equipments and furniture included in laundry plant work and he sought confirmation, if this list met requirement of R&R Hospital.
34.On the other hand, vide letter dated 07.09.1994 (Ex.PW21/D11) Col. T.K. Mittal for E-in-C's Branch directed Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone to finalize the list of mechanical laundry equipments in consultation with specialist firms, to whom the tenders were issued. He further recommended including equipments in view of users recommendation. The user was obviously R&R Hospital and Lt. Col. K.S. Bhimwal was project officer at that place. All the aforesaid official communications make two things amply clear. The user of the laundry plant i.e. R&R Hospital was being consulted and given primacy to make recommendation in respect of the choice of equipments of laundry plant. The user had recommended for equipments of M/s. Stefeb company. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the decision to include the equipments of M/s. Stefeb company as per specifications given by this company, was not taken by any of the accused persons on their own. Such decision was taken after a series of consultation involving different branches and was primarily based on the choice of the user.
Page 48 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 THEORY OF CONSPIRACY SINCE BEGINNING :-
35.CBI has made allegations against the accused persons that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal misconduct so as to extend undue favour to M/s. K.B. Contractors, acting against the public interest and in pursuance of the same such limited choice was given in the tender. However, as far as choice of the equipments of M/s. Stefeb company or M/s. Snow White company is concerned, I do not find any possibility of a decision being taken solely by any of the accused persons including Brigadier A.K. Soni. In that situation there was the least probability/chance to enter into a criminal conspiracy to achieve the alleged purpose. It was certainly beyond control of accused persons to make a choice of equipments for a laundry plant at R&R Hospital and therefore, they were not in position to enter into such kind of criminal conspiracy.
36.Another reason to reach the same conclusion regarding absence of the alleged criminal conspiracy is that admittedly eight firms had applied for tender documents. Out of these eight firms, only three firms participated in the tender proceedings to furnish their bid. It could not be under control of any of the accused persons to control/regulate the actions of other firms. It is not alleged by CBI that any of the accused persons managed to stop five out of eight firms from furnishing their bid in this tender. It is not alleged by CBI that any of the accused persons prevailed upon M/s. BTC Laundry Equipments Company or M/s. Matharoo Manufacturing Company to desist from furnishing bid in respect of equipments of M/s. Stefeb company. All of these eight firms including M/s. Stefeb company were at liberty to quote for equipments from M/s. Stefeb company. If they did not opt to do so, then it was purely their own decision. None of the accused persons can be held liable for omission on the part of other firms to quote for M/s. Stefeb equipments. Therefore, Page 49 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 there could not be any scope for any of the accused persons to enter into an agreement to ensure that none else than M/s. K.B. Contractor qualified in the process of technical bid. It is also worth to mention here that the bids furnished into two parts i.e. technical bid and price bid were furnished simultaneously. At that time, no one could have known the decision taken by other firms. Therefore, no one could have been sure that only M/s. K.B. Contractors could qualify in technical bid so as to become entitled for processing of the price bid furnished by them. OMISSION TO ISSUE FRESH ADVERTISEMENT :-
37.Another limb of allegations made by CBI against accused Brigadier A.K. Soni is that he deliberately omitted to issue a fresh advertisement for this project. This allegation is based on the facts that the advertisement for this project appeared in the trade manuals in 1990. Seven interested parties had applied for supply of tender documents. Later on, M/s. Stefeb company also applied for tender documents, which was so supplied to them as well. CBI further alleged that in the tender documents the vital equipments necessarily required for setting up the laundry plant, was deliberately omitted by the accused persons, with a view to avoid attention of interested parties.
38.As far as question of issuing fresh advertisement of tender is concerned, PW4 deposed that he was aware of Rule 25 of the Compendium of Contracts, which provide guidelines of re-tendering of any contract. He said that there was no violation of this rule in tendering procedure and that there was no need for re-tendering of the contract and it was done according to the rules. He further testified that internal office notes were independently written by him and reply in response thereof was also dealt with by him solely. He had recommended that Q-bid of the contractor might be opened. He further testified that there was nothing wrong in this contract either from technical point of view or monitory Page 50 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 point of view or procedural point of view.
39.PW5/Sh. Satish Chander, who worked as Surveyor of works in the office of Chief Engineer MES, also deposed that documents of this case was processed by him and thereafter he put the same before Sh. N.B. Singh (A2). He admitted that while processing schedule-A pertaining to draft tender, he did not propose for re-advertisement of the tenders in question. He volunteered to say that he did not do so because there was a reduction in the estimate cost of laundry plant from 42 lakh to 25 lakh. He also admitted that as per rules re-publication of notes inviting tender was not required. He deposed that as per tendering procedure there was no need for fresh publication of notes inviting tender. In respect of reduction of cost from 42 lakh to 25 lakh, he deposed that this reduction occurred because there was a proposal to shift existing laundry plant from Base Hospital to R&R Hospital. He was part of that team and it was initial proposal that some of the parts of the old laundry plant could be used in the laundry plant to be installed in the R&R Hospital. Some new parts/ equipments were also to be used in R&R Hospital. Thus, this cost of Rs.25 lakh was for shifting of existing laundry plant and not for installation of a new laundry plant.
40.PW24/Sh. D.S. Saxena was working as SO-I Planning in the office of Chief Engineer MES. He was heading the planning section i.e. E2 at the relevant time. He deposed that he was aware of rules and regulations and there were three monitoring committees for this project. He admitted that defence service regulations for Military Engineering Services were being followed.
41.PW31/Brig. T.K. Mittal was posted as Director Utilities at E-in-C's Branch Army Headquarter. The E-in-C's Branch was the controlling office of all engineering staff working for Army, Navy, Air Force and the Military Engineering Services. He deposed that a letter dated 02.12.1994 Page 51 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 (Ex.PW31/D6) signed by Sh. S.S. Gulati was sent by E-in-C's Branch to Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone stating that in view of available savings and tolerances no corrigendum was required. He further deposed that as per the norms re-tendering was generally to be discouraged and it could be resorted to only in the cases of inadequate competition & blatantly high rates. He further deposed that during his tenure no procedural lapse or irregularities came to his notice. Thus, all these different officials of the department ruled out any requirement for re-tendering in this case and therefore, there is no support to the allegations made by CBI in respect of omissions to issue fresh advertisement.
42.As far as allegations that in the tender documents the vital equipments necessarily required for setting up the laundry plant were deliberately omitted by accused persons, with a view to avoid attention of interested parties, are concerned, all the officials of department have acknowledged that it was the user who was given primacy to make choice of equipments. The job of deciding the equipments was thus, based on the requirement and recommendation of the user. There had been regular deliberation among different branches to finalize the description of equipments. Initially there was proposal to shift some equipments of laundry plant from Base Hospital to R&R Hospital, but same was done away with in view of prestigious project being there. The importance of this project has already been highlighted by me on the basis of statement of case (Ex.PW24/3), which was duly re-commended by Major General Sh. T. Kumar, Commandant Army hospital.
43.According to PW24/Sh. D.S. Saxena E-in-C's Branch wanted DGMS Branch to finalize the best of equipments and same was forwarded to E4 section. In an internal meeting attended by this witness, it was decided that Sh. Karihaloo (A3) would work out equipment of the plant. He further deposed that the hospital cell was giving technical instructions to E4 Page 52 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 section and these instructions deemed to be instructions from E-in-C's Branch (which was the highest office of MES). The equipments which were finally included in the tender documents, were thus, based on mutual deliberation between different branches and the requirements of DGMS. Therefore, none of the accused persons had any authority to have final say in finalizing the equipments to be sent for tendering process. I would just refer to one communication i.e. Ex.PW21/D7, wherein Lt. Col. R.K. Bhaskar while sending a letter to DGMS observed that identification of the latest generation of equipment to fulfill user's requirement was entrusted to them vide official note dated 21.4.1994. This communication confirms the primacy of user to make choice of equipment, that too the best possible equipments. In this respect the various communications between PW21/Sh. M.L. Sapori and DGMS are once again reflective of the fact that requirement of DGMS was being taken into consideration for deciding the final equipments as well as their quantities to be used in the laundry plant. Therefore, I do not find any ground in the allegations that the vital equipments were deliberately suppressed and were not mentioned in the tender documents, so as to avoid attention of interested parties.
44.In any case, it is admitted case that apart from M/s. K.B. Contractors no other bidder had furnished bid for the specified make of equipments. Therefore, inclusion or change in the list of equipments could not have any bearing on the eligibility of other contractors. So there is no basis to smell any conspiracy on the basis of such allegations.
45.It was also alleged by CBI that specification of boiler required for this plant along with accessories were not mentioned by accused persons in the tender documents.
46.Initially there was proposal for supply of hot water boiler, however, later on, during scrutiny of technical bid once again it was realized by the Page 53 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 department that steam boiler was the better choice. Admittedly, Thermax Company was the reputed manufacturer of this boiler. The change in the type of boiler was once again a well deliberated decision, which was taken by PW21/ Sh. M.L. Sapori. Vide letter dated 28.01.1995 (Ex.PW4/2K-14) M/s. K.B. Contractors had responded to a letter dated 29.12.1994 (Ex.PW4/2K-12), which was sent by Sh. H.R. Sharma (PW4). Vide this letter Mr. H.R. Sharma had asked M/s. K.B. Contractors to submit revised calculations in view of wide range of variations between earlier design which were finally agreed upon. He had also mentioned that electrically operated steam boiler was agreed too and he had advised to forward design with complete details on equipments. In the same letter, he had stated that steam boiler of Thermax model Revomax RX-6 was acceptable. M/s. K.B. Contractors through accused Sh. K.L. Khanna had once again suggested to purchase oil fired steam boilers of any reputed make. This suggestion of accused Sh. K.L. Khanna was accepted and PW21/ Sh. M.L. Sapori communicated to him that steam boiler of Revomax RX-06 was preferred. He had also accepted the suggestion of accused Sh. K.L. Khanna to do away with hot water boiler vide his note Ex.PW4/2K-16. Thus, it is well apparent that such decisions were not unilaterally taken by any of the accused persons and acceptance as well as approval was given by the witnesses, who were examined by CBI in this case. Therefore, I do not find any foundation behind the allegations made by CBI regarding omission to mention boiler and other accessories in the tender documents.
OMISSION TO CONSIDER THE BIDS OF M/S. BTC LAUNDRY EQUIPMENTS COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND M/S. MATHAROO MANUFACTURING COMPANY :-
47.CBI alleged that these two parties had quoted for their own product and Page 54 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 they represented to MES to include their products in the tender. But no consideration was given to them. At the same time they also alleged that accused Sh. K.K. Karihaloo gave comments while giving dishonest and misleading remarks that cases of these two contractors were being considered separately.
48.At the cost of repetition, once again I wish to mention here that these two contractors had not quoted for the equipments as per specifications and make given in the tender. All the witnesses examined by CBI from the department were of unanimous view that since these two contractors had not quoted for the equipments as per specifications given in the tender, therefore, their bid was not liable to be considered. In these circumstances, I do not find any logic in the aforesaid allegations of CBI.
It was a well deliberated decision taken by the department including different branches of Army to opt for the equipments manufactured by M/s. Stefeb company. Even if the representations of aforesaid two contractors to include their equipments in the tender were not positively considered, still no mala fide or criminality in the actions of any of the accused persons can be found.
EXAGGERATED PRICE OF THE EQUIPMENTS :-
49.I have already referred to the letter sent by PW4/Sh. H.R. Sharma to M/s. K.B. Contractors i.e. Ex.PW4/2K-12. In this letter, PW4 had asked the contractor to furnish revised calculations. The final rates which were approved and on the basis of which contract was awarded to M/s. K.B. Contractors are as follows :-
Srl. Final Contract Model Rate (in Qt
No. Rs./-) .
1. Sluicing Machine LX-25 2,17,200 2
2. Washing Machine LX-100 3,71,200 4
3. Hydro Extractor H-25 95,000 4
4. Drying Tumbler DS-50 1,99,000 4
Page 55 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016
5. Flat Bed Press FPS-30 1,24,300 2
6. Flat Work Ironer FCS-224 8,58,500 1
7. Dry Cleaning Machine DMX-25 2.00,600 1 8. Ironing Table IT-120 8,200 2
9. Wet Linen Trolly/ Dry Linen Trolly WTR-50/ DTR-50 8,250 12 11. Shelf Trolly STR-150 12,226 1 12. Work Table/ Rolling Table TS-115 11,632 1 13. Compressor 3HP - 40,000 1
14. Steam Boiler + Accessories - 2778,442 2
50.The rates for all the equipments except shelf trolly, work table/rollying table, compressor and steam boiler were same as quoted in the initial tender. There was no quotation for the aforesaid four equipments in the initial tender. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI along with IO referred to comparative chart of different equipments, which were purchased by different entities at different prices. Relying upon the same, their argument was that excessive price was quoted by accused Sh. K.L. Khanna and it was dishonestly approved by the accused persons. On the other hand, argument of defence had been that there is no such evidence on the record in support of such allegation because admittedly none of the documents were manipulated or fabricated by any of the accused persons. The main argument of defence had been that it was a turnkey project and the method adopted by IO to compare the rate of supply of equipments with the rate quoted for turnkey project was inherently fallacious. It was argued by ld. counsels that the turnkey project involved many other job, hence, supply of equipment was only one part of the job.
In these circumstances, the cost of supply of equipment could not be compared with the cost of all the jobs done under turnkey project.
51.It is undisputed fact that it was a turnkey project. All the witnesses from the department also subscribed to the suggestion that in turnkey project apart from supplying the equipments many other jobs were required to Page 56 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 be done. The scope of turnkey project was explained by PW4 stating that it included job of imparting training to the staff with respect to running of the plant and maintenance of the plant after installation. It also included designing the entire plant, supplying the equipments, installation of the equipments, commissioning the plant etc.
52.In official note Ex.PW4/2K-25, accused Sh. N.B. Singh had noted in point 3(a) that the firm (referring to M/s. K.B. Contractors) had confirmed that the amount quoted in Q-bid was based on turnkey project and no extra payment would be claimed by the firm. This noting was approved by ACE Branch. The relevance of mentioning aforesaid noting is that the quotations were given on the basis of turnkey project and the contractor had assured the department not to claim extra payment (on account of other jobs included in turnkey project). In these circumstances, I do find that simple price at which a particular equipment was supplied to other entities at different time could not be a basis to make evaluation of reasonableness of the cost quoted by accused Sh. K.L. Khanna and approved by the department.
53.Another aspect is that whatever were the quotations, they were duly considered by different officials including ACE (planning) and were approved. PW4 vide his note Ex.PW4/2K-26 had recommended the quoted price of Rs.73,59,248/- for acceptance. He also confirmed that tender was in order. Even Col. Malhotra from ACE (planning) while dealing with official note given by accused Mohd. Zafar-Ul-Lah dated 29.03.1995 observed that being a turnkey work, the rates quoted by the lowest tenderer seemed to be reasonable. This note is Ex.PW21/D-22. He had observed that there was scope of reduction in price quotes for the tankers for water supply and oil and he recommended to ask tenderer to reduce the quoted price for water and oil tankers. The quoted rate for these two tankers were Rs.1,98,000/- and Rs.1,48,000/- i.e. Page 57 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Rs.3.46 lakh and the pre-quoted price for these two tanks were Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,43,750/- i.e. Rs.2,93,750/-. Further more, none of the officials from the department examined by CBI, stated that the approval of price quoted by M/s. K.B. Contractors was done by any of the accused persons against the norms or rules or opinion given by any other branch of MES. The contractor had finally given rebate of Rs.30,000/- at the time of finalization of the contract and thus, it had been basically a process of bargain over price with the contractor. Hence, once again I am unable to find any element of criminal conspiracy among the accused persons so as to approve the amount of contract, as it is apparent that the amount of contract was also within knowledge of other branches of MES and none had raised any objection to the same. It was with acceptance and approval of ACE (planning) that such amount was finalized and the letter was finally sent by PW4 himself to the contractor. PW4 had already affirmed the tender to be in order vide his note dated 08.05.1995 (Ex.PW4/2K-26) and had recommended the case for acceptance. So it cannot be said that any decision in this regard was taken by any of the accused persons unilaterally or going against the advice of any other official. PW4 as well as others did state that they did not find anything wrong in this contract. CBI did not refer to any particular rule or regulation to allege breach or violation of the same on the part of accused persons.
54.After dealing with aforesaid allegations made by CBI, it becomes apparent to me that the allegations of conspiracy so as to extend undue benefit to M/s. K.B. Contractors by the accused public servants has no basis and evidence to support the same. During arguments, ld. Sr. PP for CBI and IO had also referred to the evaluation done by officials of CPWD so as to argue that their report established that the contract was awarded at much higher rate. Defence counsels challenged the Page 58 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 authenticity of such evaluation on the grounds that neither the work was complete at the time when such evaluation was allegedly conducted on 11.09.1996 nor any such evaluation was actually conducted at the site.
55.PW26/Sh. R.K. Aggarwal and PW27/Sh. Vasudev were the relevant witnesses, who had allegedly inspected the site of this laundry on 11.09.1996 so as to evaluate the work done and make a valuation in the terms of cost. IO/PW39 admitted that the work was not complete on 11.09.1996. So apparently this inspection was not done in respect of complete work. PW26 and PW27 deposed that this inspection was conducted on 11.09.1996 and the report was also prepared on the same day. On careful analysis of their testimony, I can find that this alleged inspection was not done in the presence of any representative of the contractor. Thus, no opportunity was given to the contractor to explain the works done by him. Both these witnesses had prepared different portions of the report Ex.PW26/1. According to PW26 the base of pricing of the item as mentioned in the report was market rate of the items. PW26 vouched that he himself had gone to the market to assess the market rate and on the basis of his past experience, he had fixed the rates of items. He stated that inspection was conducted from 10-10:30 AM to 02-02:30 PM. He was informed that it was turnkey project. He admitted that at the time of inspection there was no wiring in the plant. He could not tell that which market was visited by him or which shop was visited by him to assess the market rate. He had admittedly not mentioned the makes of pipes, wire etc. in the inspection report. He vouched that he visited nearby market, but surprisingly he could not remember the name and place that market.
56.On the other hand, PW27 in his testimony represented as if contractor was present with him. He further deposed that analysis of rates was got prepared by him through staffs. He prepared the report in his office.
Page 59 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 Later on, he stated that he did not call contractor or his representative. He stated that he carried out inspection as per CPWD schedule of specification and manual, but also admitted that this manual did not contain any specific rule for laundry plant. He went on to deny that the project was not complete on the date of inspection. He also vouched that the pricing was done on the basis of market rates, but the market inquiry was done by his staff. He admitted that as per procedure the measurements were to be taken in the presence of contractor or his representative. He also admitted that DSR rates were without any market variation. He had taken the measurement of depth of the foundation as per information given to him by Mr. Prabhakar from MES. Though, report was prepared on 11.09.1996, but analysis of rates was given on 12.09.1996. Where the DSR rates were not available, he had taken the market rates into consideration. But no documentary proof of the market rates were obtained by him. He admittedly did not mention the makes of the item in his report nor did he mention the thickness and grade of the pipes. He admitted that without thickness and grade of the pipes, the rates could not be ascertained. He further admitted that the DSR rates taken into consideration pertained to year 1993 and the rates must have gone up by 1996.
57.Thus, I find that the evaluation report given by these two witnesses is not worth reliance because neither the inspection was carried out in respect of complete project nor any representative of contractor was joined in that inspection. Furthermore, the testimony of these two witnesses do not inspire confidence because neither they were able to inform the source of market rates allegedly obtained by them nor did they attach any document to support the base of pricing as obtained from market. They did not even consider the specification of each item before giving valuation of the same. Therefore, their report cannot be Page 60 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/5/2016 relied upon.
58.Having reached the conclusion that there was no criminal conspiracy among the accused persons with object to extend undue favour and benefit to M/s. K.B. Contractors, all accused persons are entitled for acquittal on the charges under Section 120B IPC.
59.In view of my foregoing discussions and findings, I also do not find any case of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) against the public servants. No case of cheating on the part of accused Sh. K.L. Khanna is made out because there is no element of deception. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges.
File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 18.07.2017 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 61 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 61 of 61 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi