Bangalore District Court
State By Cbi/Acb vs ) Sri Sanjay Shivaji Mahendrakar @ on 18 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BENGALURU (CCH-4).
Spl. C.C. No.237/2014
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
PRESENT : Sri. Bheemanagouda K. Naik,
B.Com., LL.B., (Spl.)
XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
Complainant: State by CBI/ACB, Bengaluru
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: 1) Sri Sanjay Shivaji Mahendrakar @
M.S. Sanjay
S/o Sri. M.T. Shivaji
Aged about 40 years
The then Deputy Manager (Methods),
Helicopter Division,
M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Bengaluru (dismissed from service
w.e.f. 08/10/2013)
'Anugraha', No.40, 1st 'B' Cross,
Priyadarshini Layout, Ayyappa Nagar,
K.R. Puram, Bengaluru-36.
2) Sri. H.M. Ramesh
S/o H.R. Madhavachar
Aged about 50 years
The then Assistant Engineer (QC),
Helicopter Division,
M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Bengaluru (dismissed from service
w.e.f. 08/10/2013)
No.9, 'Sri Hari Vayu Krupa', 1st 'A' Main,
2 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
6th Cross, Gururaja Layout,
Doddanakkundi, Bengaluru-560037.
3) Sri. K.V. Hemanth
S/o Sri. K.Vittal Shettigar
Aged about 34 years
The then Consultant,
M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices,
Bengaluru now, Director
M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices
(Bengaluru) Private Limited,
No.55, 4th Main, 3rd Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bengaluru-58.
No.1108, 'I' Block, Brigade Gateway
Apartment, No.26/1, Dr. Rajkumar
Road, Malleswaram West,
Bengaluru-5.
4) Sri. B. Damodar
S/o Late Janardhan Shettigar
Aged about 55 years
The then Managing Partner,
M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices,
Bengaluru now, Managing Director,
M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices
(Bengaluru) Private Limited,
No.55, 4th Main, 3rd Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-58.
No.21, First Circular Road, 1st Main,
Dollars Scheme, Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-96.
(By Sri. M.R. Narayan, Advocate for
Accused No.1 to 4)
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru, has filed a charge sheet against the above accused No.1 to 4 for 3 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the offences punishable under Sec. 120-B r/w Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: -
(a) The Accused No.1 - Sri. M.S. Sanjay functioned as a public servant in the capacity of Deputy Manager in Outsourcing Department of Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru from 12.6.2008 to 19.10.2011 and Accused No.2 - Sri. H.M. Ramesh functioned as a public servant in the capacities of Chief Supervisor (Quality) and Asst. Engineer in Quality Assurance Department of Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru from 17.9.2007 to 30.6.2008 and from 1.7.2008 to 18.11.2011 respectively.
(b) The Accused No.3 Sri. K.V. Hemanth was one of the partners of the firm M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices for a short period from 2.1.2012 till it was converted into a private limited company on 1.4.2012. Prior to becoming a partner, he was associated with the firm M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices as a Consultant since 2002, after completion of his engineering degree. As Consultant, he was looking after the jobs of production, planning, procurement and marketing of products of 4 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the firm. The Accused No.4 - Sri. B. Damodar was the Managing Partner of the erstwhile partnership firm M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices from the date of registration on 30.10.1990 till its conversion into a private limited company in 2012. He was looking after the second Unit of M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices at No.55, 4th Main, 3rd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru- 58, which was handling the business with HAL.
(c). During the year 2005, the Helicopter Division of M/s. HAL had placed four Purchase Orders bearing Nos. 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000 for purchase/fabrication of 56 Nos. of Brackets from M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru which were to be supplied within six months from the date of issue of raw materials. The raw material worth Rs.4,55,328/- was issued to M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru by the Helicopter Division of M/s. HAL during March, 2007 for fabrication of Brackets and therefore, the supply of Brackets was to be made in September, 2007.
(d) As per the Purchase Orders, M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru was to commence bulk machining of the Brackets after approval of First Off Pilot Piece (sample) by HAL. Two Brackets as First Off Pilot Pieces were supplied by M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru during June, 2007 and 5 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J August, 2007. However, due to change in design/production plan, the Brackets were no longer required and hence, no approval was given to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices for commencing bulk manufacturing of the Brackets.
(e) In the meantime, the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat M/s. HAL and in furtherance of the same, during January & February, 2011 i.e., after almost four years of issue of raw material, M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices supplied some other small unwanted parts in lieu of Brackets mentioned in the Delivery Challans even without clearance of First Off Pilot Pieces and Pre-dispatch Inspection and claimed payments. In connivance with the accused No.1 and 2, public servants, Accused No.3, the owner of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices got the Receiving Reports (RRs) cleared, got the bills processed and got payment. An amount of Rs.17,70,449/- after TDS and other deductions was paid to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices during February & March, 2011 against the aforementioned four Purchase Orders i.e. 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000.
(f) It is further alleged that the so called Brackets were supposedly supplied on four different dates during January- February, 2011 vide eight Delivery Challans, whereas 6 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Outsourcing Department is having record in the Incoming Register of the Parts against only two Delivery Challans and the Inspection Department is also not having any documents pertaining to these Brackets. No finishing operation has been carried out on any of these Brackets and the Brackets have not been tagged and are missing. It is further alleged that the IDs of Inspectors were misused to falsely show that the parts supplied were inspected and released for finishing operations in IFS and RRs were generated by Accused No.2, even before inspection of the parts.
(g) That the fraud came to light when the office bearers of Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association (HAEA) and Executive Committee Members of the Division had reported to the Chief Manager (HR), Helicopter Division. Thereafter, on the directives of HAL Corporate Office, the then Senior Manager (Vig.)/HD carried out the detailed investigation. During the course of internal inquiry, Accused No.2 admitted that the parts were not supplied by the vendor and that he, in connivance with Accused No.1 and 3, had cleared the Receiving Reports inspite of the parts not being supplied and that he had misused the IDs of Shri Ajith Kumar M.V. & Shri Venkatesh M and released the Brackets for finishing operations in IFS. Accused No.1 also 7 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J admitted that the parts were not supplied by the vendor and that he, in connivance with Accused No.3 and Accused No.2 got the receiving reports cleared and processed bills and got the payment made to the firm. Accused No.1 also admitted of having advised the vendor to somehow produce the delivery challans with proper entries and security stamp without actually brining the parts because if the parts were actually brought inside the division, it might cause problems. Accordingly, M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru did not supply the actual parts (brackets) mentioned in the Delivery Challans, but brought some small unwanted parts and got the Delivery Challans stamped by security as Security Personnel at material gate were concerned with the correctness of the physical quantity with that mentioned in the DCs and the parts specification/ identification of part is not done by the security at the gate. Both Accused No.1 and 2 also admitted that they helped the vendor as he had machined the raw material substantially but would not have got payment as the parts were not required and no clearance was given by the division to the vendor for commencing bulk machining of the parts.
(h) The Accused No.1 and 2 have clearly abused their official position and shown undue favour to M/s. Dynatech Tools 8 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J & Devices, Bengaluru represented by Accused No.3 and 4 by way of falsely certifying the receipt of parts/brackets and their inspection by the Quality through RRs, based on which the bills payable (local) Section of Finance Department of HAL - HD made the payment of invoices raised by accused No.4. Thereby the accused persons have cheated the HAL and caused wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.22,67,189/- to M/s. HAL in which Rs.17,70,449/- has been paid to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Rs.41,412/- towards deduction of TDS and Rs.4,55,328/- towards the cost of raw material of 54 Aluminium Flats, which the firm has not returned to M/s HAL and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves. Accused No.3 and 4 also attempted to obtain wrongful payment against the purported supply of two more parts/brackets in March 2011.
(i) Further, the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, forged the documents for cheating and used the forged documents as genuine documents for the purpose of cheating HAL.
(j) Sri. Suryakanth Noubad, Addl. General Manager, while working in Outsourcing Department, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru lodged his written complaint dated 20.3.2013 before the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru, who received 9 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the complaint and registered a case in RC No.06(A)/2013 and submitted FIR to the court in a sealed cover and entrusted the investigation of the case to CW-41 Sri. K.Y. Guruprasad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru. CW-41 took up investigation, obtained search warrants from the court, conducted the search by himself and through his officers, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized and secured the documents and concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 before the court.
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance of offences has been taken, Accused No.1 to 4 appeared before the court and they have been enlarged on bail and necessary police papers have been furnished to them. The accused No.1 to 4 submitted their respective application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying for discharge. The prosecution had submitted their detail objections opposing the discharge of all accused. Thereafter the arguments have been heard on the applications filed by the accused and their applications came to be rejected by the order dated 21.10.2014. Then the charge has been framed against all the Accused, explained the contents of the charge to each of them in the language known to them and they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
4. Then the prosecution examined in all 35 witnesses as PWs.1 to 35 and got exhibited 127 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.127 and closed its side. Then the statements of Accused No.1 to 4 have been recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., after explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence by the prosecution witnesses and they have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The Accused No.1 to 4 have entered the defence evidence on their behalf, examined five witnesses as DW.1 to 5, examined accused No.3 himself as DW.6 and got exhibited Ex.D1 to D39 in support of their defence and closed their defence.
5. Then I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 4 have submitted their detailed notes of arguments and memo with citations.
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No. 1 and 2, while functioning as public servants in the Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru during the period from 12.6.2008 to 19.10.2011 have entered into an illegal agreement with Accused No.3 and 4 who are the Director and Managing Director of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru to forge receiving report and inspection report pertaining to supply of 11 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J fabricated brackets and to forge Delivery Challans in order to cheat Helicopter Division of HAL and thereby forged receiving reports, inspection reports and other challans, without supplying fabricated brackets or without returning raw materials to the Helicopter Division of HAL on the basis of two rate contract agreements dated 22.7.2005 and 22.7.2004 between M/s. HAL and M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru in respect of four Purchase Orders Nos.5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000 and thereby committed an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/sec.
120(B) of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, the Accused No. 1 to 4, dishonestly or fraudulently during the relevant period, time and place on the basis of rate contract agreement and four purchase orders dishonestly induced Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru to pay Rs.22,67,189/- i.e., to pay Rs.17,70,449/- under different bills and deducted Rs.41,412/- towards TDS from the bills and caused loss without returning raw materials to HAL worth Rs.4,55,328/- and without delivering finished fabricated brackets under four purchase orders and accused No.3 and 4 supplied some unwanted materials by fabricating Delivery Challans and accused No.1 and 2 on the basis of forged RRs and inspection reports made to pay aforesaid amount to accused No.3 and 4 and caused wrongful gain to M/s. Dynatech and caused wrongful loss to HAL to the tune of Rs.22,67,189/- and thereby cheated HAL, Bengaluru and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 420 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in 12 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Accused No.1 and 2 during the relevant period, forged receiving reports and inspection reports and Accused No.2 forged some inspection reports stealthily by using the IDs of one Ajith Kumar M.V. and Venkatesh M by generating some forged inspection report over the system and accused No.3 and 4 forged Delivery Challans showing the return of finished, fabricated brackets without returning the said fabricated brackets and supplied some other unwanted materials with an intention to cheat M/s. HAL and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy Accused No.1 to 4 used forged Receiving Reports, inspection reports, Delivery Challans and payment advices as genuine documents knowing fully well that they are forged documents and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, Accused No.1 while working as the Deputy Manager in Outsourcing Department of Helicopter Division in HAL from 12.6.2008 to 19.10.2011 and Accused No.2 while working as Chief Supervisor (Quality) from 17.9.2007 to 30.6.2008 and as Asst. Engineer in Quality Assurance Department of HAL from 1.7.2008 to 18.2.2011 being public servants by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing their position as public servants, obtained pecuniary advantage to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru held by accused No.3 and 4 and thereby committed a criminal misconduct punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
13 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
6) What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1: In the affirmative, POINT No.2: In the affirmative, POINT No.3: In the affirmative, POINT No.4: In the affirmative, POINT No.5: In the negative, POINT No.6: As per final order, for the following REASONS
8. POINT No.1 to 5: - All these points have been taken up together for consideration and discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
A) ABOUT M/S. DYNATECH TOOLS & DEVICES PVT., LTD., BENGALURU:
9. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Dynatech) was established as a registered partnership firm in the year 1991. It is further admitted that there was retirement of some partners from time to time, change in the address of the business of the firm and reconstitution of partnership firm. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of 14 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J PW.2 Sri. Gangadharaiah, District Registrar of Firms and Societies. He has deposed his evidence in detail about the registration of partnership firm M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru, change of address and reconstitution of the partnership firm and the relevant documents produced by him before the Investigating Officer during the investigation under his covering letter Ex.P.2 and documents Ex.P.3 to P34. The evidence deposed by PW.2 and the contents of Ex.P.2 to 34 are not disputed in any manner by any of the accused. Therefore, there is no dispute that originally M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru was formed as a registered partnership firm in the year 1991 for doing its business in Bengaluru.
10. Further, it is admitted that on 25.3.2012, M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru has been converted into a joint stock private limited company and registered with Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.3 Sri. Sathyajith Roul, Asst. Registrar of Companies. PW.3 has deposed about the registration of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru under the Companies Act, in the name of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru, its Memorandum of Association, Resolution and issue of Registration 15 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Certificate as per Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.43 and production of those records before the Investigating Officer under covering letter Ex.P.35. The evidence deposed by PW.3 and the contents of Ex.P.36 to P43 are not disputed in any manner. As on the date of filing the complaint, M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru was a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and represented by accused No.3 and 4.
11. Further, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of pw.23 Sri. A.P. Lokesh, who was Accountant in M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd. He has deposed about the formation of the firm and then formation of company. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that originally M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., was formed as a registered partnership firm and then converted into private limited company.
B) ABOUT HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. AND EMPLOYMENT OF ACCUSED No.1 & 2 IN HAL:
12. It is admitted that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is a public sector undertaking of Govt. of India. It is further admitted that accused No.1 was in the service of HAL as Deputy Manager, Helicopter Division from 12.6.2008 to 19.10.2011 and 16 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J accused No.2 was in the service of HAL as Chief Supervisor and then promoted as Asst. Engineer (Quality Control), Helicopter Division from 17.9.2007 to 30.6.2008 and from 1.7.2008 to 18.11.2011 respectively. Regarding the service of accused No.1 and 2 in HAL, PW.4 Sri. N. Manjunatha, Manager (HR), Helicopter Division, HAL has deposed in detail and produced the personal files of accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.44 to 46 and there is no dispute about his evidence and the service records of accused No.1 and 2 produced before court and their post held and tenure of service in the HAL.
13. It is further admitted that pursuant to the Departmental Enquiry against accused No.1 and 2, they have been dismissed from their service w.e.f., 8.10.2013. Therefore, as on the date of filing of final report for launching the prosecution they were not the public servants. Therefore, the question of obtaining sanction for prosecution to prosecute them before the court does not arise.
C) M/S. DYNATECH A REGISTERED APPROVED VENDOR OF HAL:
14. It is further admitted that M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru was registered, as approved 17 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J vendor with HAL for supply of various components. In this regard, PW.5 has deposed his evidence and Ex.P.47 is the document concerning to the registration of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru with HAL as a vendor. D) CONTRACT BETWEEN HAL & M/s. DYNATECH:
15. It is further admitted that there was a rate contract between M/s. HAL and M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices Pvt., Ltd., Bengaluru as per Ex.P.48. Regarding this contract, PW.5 has deposed his evidence and produced Ex.P.48 rate contract dated 22.7.2004.
16. Further, PW.23 has deposed about rate contract Ex.P.48 entered into between HAL and M/s. Dynatech. Further, he has deposed that accused No.4, Damodar has signed the same on all the pages of rate contract.
17. Further, PW.23 has deposed about one more such contract between HAL and M/s. Dynatech as per Ex.P.52 and deposed that the same has been signed by accused No.4 at Ex.P.52(a) and he had also signed as a representative of the firm at Ex.P.52(b). There is no dispute about the rate contract entered into between M/s. HAL and M/s. Dynatech as per Ex.P.48 and Ex.P52.
18 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J E) PLACING OF PURCHASE ORDERS BY M/S. HAL FOR SUPPLY OF BRACKETS TO M/S. DYNATECH:
18. It is an admitted fact that M/s. HAL placed four Purchase Orders bearing No. 5551997 dt. 23.6.2005, 5551998 dt. 23.6.2005, 5551999 dt. 27.9.2005 and 5552000 dt. 14.10.2005 for supply of brackets mentioned below: -
(a) Purchase Order No. 5551997 dtd. 23.06.2005 for machining of two types of parts viz., (i) Part No. 201Y 966H 1070 201 LH: Bracket LH and (ii) Part No. 201Y 966H 1070 202 RH:Bracket RH for quantity of 7 nos. each at unit price of Rs.38,346.42 each amounting to total order value of Rs.5,36,849.88 against the material purchase request No. 6444- 5801 dtd. 04.06.2005.
(b) Purchase Order No. 5551998 dtd. 23.06.2005 for machining of two types of parts viz., (i) Part No. 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH: Bracket LH and (ii) Part No. 201Y 966H 1075 202 RH: Bracket RH for quantity of 7 nos. each at unit price of Rs.38,346.42 each amounting to total order value of Rs.5,36,849.88 against the material purchase request No. 6444-5802 dtd. 04.06.2005.
(c) Purchase Order No. 5551999 dtd. 27.09.2005 for machining of two types of parts viz., (i) Part No. 201Y 966H 1070 201 LH-1: Bracket LH and (ii) Part No. 201Y 966H 1070 202 RH-1: Bracket RH for quantity of 7 nos. each at unit price of Rs.38,346.42 19 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J each amounting to total order value of Rs.5,36,849.88 against the material purchase request No. 6444-5817 dtd. 04.06.2005.
(d) Purchase Order No. 5552000 dtd. 14.10.2005 for machining of two types of parts viz., (i) Part No. 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH-1: Bracket LH and (ii) Part No. 201Y 966H 1075 202 RH-1: Bracket RH for quantity of 7 nos. each at unit price of Rs.38,346.42 each amounting to total order value of Rs.5,36,849.88 against the material purchase request No. 6444-5818 dtd. 04.06.2005.
19. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.5 Eerabasappa who has deposed that from 2.6.2009, he was working as Manager in HAL Outsourcing and from July 2010, he has been working as Sr. Manager, Outsourcing Dept., Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru, that as a Sr. Manager in Outsourcing Dept., he has been looking after the tender and ordering of outsourcing materials.
20. Further, he has deposed that they are not manufacturing all the parts required in their Helicopter Division for production of Helicopter. Due to facility constraint, time constraint and economy, they are not manufacturing some of the parts required for manufacture of Helicopter. For some parts they outsource from the external vendors. Further, he has 20 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J deposed about the four purchase orders placed by HAL to M/s. Dynatech for supply of brackets.
21. Regarding these purchase orders, PW.10 Srihari, PW.11 C. Mallikarjuna, PW.17 B.R. Girish, PW.18 Santhosh PW.19 A. Bhanuprakash, PW.20 M.V. Ajith Kumar, PW.23 A.P. Lokesh, and PW.25 C.B. Shivalingaiah of HAL and M/s. Dynatech have deposed and the purchase orders are Ex.P.49, 50, 53 and 54 for supply of brackets. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about the purchase orders as per Ex.P.49, 50, 53 and 54 placed by HAL to M/s. Dynatech for supply of brackets described in the respective purchase orders.
F) SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIALS BY HAL TO M/s.
DYNATECH:
22. It is an admitted fact that raw material for fabrication of the parts (brackets) ordered in four purchase orders in favour of M/s. Dynatech was procured from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany. In this regard, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.7 Sri. P. Vijaya Kumar, Senior Manager, HAL who has deposed about procuring of two flat aluminium of 65 Nos., each from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany at the cost of Euro 150.74 per each number, for supply of the same to M/s.
21 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Dynatech. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.69(a) is the Import Bill pertaining to the said transaction. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.69(b) and 69(c) are the RRs pertaining to the said materials. Further, he has deposed that he has produced Ex.P.69 Purchase Order file relating to procurement of flat aluminium from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany, under seizure memo Ex.P.68. The evidence deposed by PW.7 and procuring the raw material i.e., flat aluminium from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany is not disputed in any manner.
23. Further, it is admitted that flat aluminium procured from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany has been supplied to M/s. Dynatech on 10.3.2007 vide non-returnable material gate pass No. 6424/09030. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the oral and documentary evidence.
PW.5 has deposed that after procuring the flat aluminium from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany, the same have been supplied to M/s. Dynatech under Material Gate Pass No.6424/09030 dated 10.3.2007. Further, he has deposed that the said material gate pass was issued by one C. Mallikarjuna, Deputy Manager, HAL and which were received by one Mr. P. Lokesh, the representative of M/s. Dynatech (PW.23) on 22 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J 10.3.2007. PW.11 Sri. C. Mallikarjuna, Deputy Manager, HAL has deposed that one Sri. A.P. Lokesh, on behalf of M/s. Dynatech had come and received the said aluminium flats mentioned in Ex.P.55 and 55(a). PW.23 Sri. A.P. Lokesh, who was Accountant in M/s. Dynatech has deposed that Ex.P.55 is Non returnable Material Gate Pass annexed with list. He has signed the same for having received the raw materials from HAL and enclosure is Ex.P.55(a), his signature is at Ex.P55(a)(a). The evidence deposed by PW.23 regarding raw material collected by him under Ex.P.55 is not disputed in any manner. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the procurement of flat aluminium from M/s Kastens & Knauer GmbH & Co., Germany and supply the same to M/s. Dynatech for fabrication of brackets. G) SUPPLY OF FIRST OFF PILOT PART (SAMPLE ARTICLE) OF BRACKET FROM M/s. DYNATECH TO HAL:
24. It is an admitted fact that after supply of raw materials to M/s. Dynatech, the said company fabricated two First Off Pilot Part for inspection by the HAL authority. In this regard, PW.5 has deposed that after placing the order, HAL would supply raw materials and the vendor has to fabricate the parts as per the drawing supplied by HAL. The vendor has to make one first off pilot part (sample article) and to approach the 23 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J HAL for inspection of said first off pilot part. The Inspector of HAL visits the premises of the vendor and inspect the said first off pilot part. After inspection, he has to give the dimensional inspection report. After clearance of the dimensional inspection report, the vendor has to supply first off pilot part to HAL.
25. He has further deposed that the first off pilot material No. 201Y 966H 1075 bracket LH against PO No. 5551998 was received vide DC No. 72 dt: 22.06.2007. The inspection of said First Off Pilot Part was done on 22.6.2007 and it was reported that "Part dimensionally found satisfactory.
Except contour details". The first article final inspection report is at Ex.P.50(c).
26. Then he has deposed that the first off Part material bearing No. 201Y 966H 1075 bracket LH against PO No. 5551997 was received vide DC No. 72 dt: 12.7.2007. The inspection of said first off part was done on 12.7.2007 and it was reported that "Part dimensionally found satisfactory. Except contour details". The said article final inspection report is at Ex.P. 53(c).
27. Further, he has deposed that in Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c), only dimensionally the part was found satisfactory but the contour details were not checked. In Ex.P50(c) and 24 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P53(c), there is nothing to ascertain that the contour details were checked and finalized to meet the given specification/ drawing. In all these four purchase orders, there is nothing to show that the Helicopter Division, HAL had accepted the First Off Part as received and given clearance to M/s Dynatech to go ahead with the machining of bulk production. There is no dispute about the supply of First Off Pilot Parts to HAL for inspection by M/s. Dynatech.
28. Secondly, PW.11 has deposed that one Mr. Prashanth had received DC with regard to First Off Pilot samples in two numbers as per Ex.P.50(c) and Ex.P.53(c). The delivery challans, parts and inspection reports should be handed over to the outsourcing department. With regard to aforesaid two samples, acceptance was not made since it was not cleared by inspection.
29. Thirdly, PW.18 Sri. C. Santhosh, Inspector-B in Inspection Department of HAL has deposed that in respect of Ex.P.50(c), he had examined the first off pilot part and written his observation as "Part dimensionally found satisfactory. Except contour details". He has further deposed that in respect of Ex.P.53(c), accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh has written endorsement 25 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J to the effect that "Part dimensionally found satisfactory. Except contour details".
30. PW.23 who was the employee of M/s. Dynatech has deposed that copy of Delivery Challan bearing DC No.72 Dt:
22.6.2007 for having delivered one bracket bearing No.4A LH 201 Y - 966H - 1075-201 is at Ex.P.50. Copy of another DC bearing No.120 dt: 7.8.2007 for having delivered the bracket 4A LH-201Y - 966H - 1070 - 201 is at Ex.P.53. Both these DCs have been prepared by him on the direction of Accused No.3.
The evidence deposed by PW.23 with regard to supply of two First Off Pilot Parts is not disputed in any manner as per Ex.P.50 and 53. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that two first off pilot parts were supplied by M/s. Dynatech to HAL for inspection. H) APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF FIRST OFF PILOT PART BY M/s. HAL:
31. It is an admitted fact that after supply of raw material, after fabrication of first off pilot parts, the same have to be inspected and approved by the HAL for taking further bulk machining of the parts. It is the allegation of the prosecution that two brackets as first off pilot pieces were supplied by M/s. Dynatech during June 2007 and August 2007 respectively. However, due to change in design/production plan, the brackets 26 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J were no longer required and hence no approval was given to M/s. Dynatech for commencing bulk manufacturing of the brackets. It is the specific defence of all the accused that the approval was given and on the oral instructions of officers of HAL, they have manufactured the bulk articles and supplied the same to M/s. HAL.
32. As seen from the contentions of both the parties, it is an admitted fact that after supply of raw material by M/s. HAL to M/s. Dynatech two first off pilot parts pieces were submitted to M/s. HAL vide Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c). The controversy in the matter is with regard to approval of the two first off pilot parts and intimation to undertake bulk manufacturing of the remaining parts.
33. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the oral and documentary evidence. Looking to the oral evidence of PW.5, he has deposed that in Ex.P50(c) and P53(c), only dimensionally, the part was found satisfactory but the contour details were not checked. In Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c), there is nothing to ascertain that the contour details were checked and finalised to meet the given specification/drawing. In all these four purchase orders, there is nothing to show that the Helicopter Division, HAL had accepted the First Off Part as 27 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J received and given clearance to M/s. Dynatech to go ahead with the machining of bulk production.
34. As seen from the entire evidence of PW.5, he was working as Manager in HAL, Outsourcing Department from 2.6.2009 and from July 2010 working as a Senior Manager in the same department. He has specifically deposed about the endorsement Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c) that only dimensionally, the part was found satisfactory but the contour details were not checked. The learned counsel for all accused relied upon the cross-examination made to this witness and admission made by him which reads as follows: -
"The concerned officer will inform the vendor with regard to approval of First Off Pilot Sample. Normally said approval is to be given in writing. Some times, the officers might have informed verbally with regard to approval."
35. By relying upon this admission in the cross, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that in the present case, the information was given orally for bulk manufacturing and it cannot be said that the first off pilot part was not approved from HAL for undertaking bulk machining. The argument of the learned counsel for accused cannot be accepted because in the present case the endorsement proves 28 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J that the first off pilot part was not approved so as to inform the vendor for bulk machining. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence deposed by PW.5 who was the Manager and is Senior Manager in the Outsourcing Department of HAL. The evidence of PW.5 proves that the first off pilot part was not approved for the reason mentioned in Ex.P.50(c) and Ex.P.53(c).
36. Secondly, looking to the evidence of PW.18 C. Santhosh, Inspector-B, Inspection Department of HAL, has deposed that from 2003, he has been working in Inspection Dept, HAL, Helicopter Division, Bengaluru and his duties are to inspect the part i.e. detail contours of the parts. There is a separate Section for View Room and they carry out the inspection of Outsourced Parts.
37. Further, he has deposed about Ex.P.50 stating that it pertains to P.O No.5551998. The parts shown in said P.O were ordered to M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices. He has examined First Article Final Inspection Report in respect of First Off Pilot Piece of Sub Contract of M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices and Ex.P.50 contains the Inspection Report of part 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH and the name of the part is Bracket. After observing the parts, he has written observation in Ex.P.50. Ex.P.50(c) is the First Article Final Inspection Report and he has written his 29 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J observation as "Part Dimensionally found satisfactory. Except Contour details" at Ex.P.50(i) and his signatures are at Ex.P.50(j) and (k).
38. Further he has deposed that Contour is a different dimension, it varies in every angle and radius and said details they had asked the same from the Design Department, when he approached the designer to get the details, the designer said that the part is not required and details were not given by the designer. He conveyed the said message that the part is not required to the person who has been dealing with the same in Outsourcing Dept. He does not remember the name of the Officer who was dealing with the same in Outsourcing Dept. He also gave same information that the part is not required to their Manager.
39. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.53 is the file pertaining to Purchase order No.5551999. The CBI Officer had enquired him that who had inspected the part shown in purchase order No.5551999 by showing the same. On seeing the said file, he told that it was not in his handwriting and it is in the handwriting of H.M.Ramesh, who was working as Asst. Engineer, Grade-I. He can identify the handwriting of H.M.Ramesh, since he had worked with H.M.Ramesh for about 8 years. The entire 30 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J dimension report was shown to him, the handwriting and signature of H.M.Ramesh were found and he identified the same before the CBI Officer. The H.M.Ramesh has written the observation as "Part Dimensionally found Satisfactory except Contour details" as per Ex.P.53(i) and signature of H.M.Ramesh is at Ex.P.53(j). He had not seen any other Brackets except the part which he had inspected.
40. This witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused and nothing has been elicited from his mouth in the cross-examination to disprove his evidence. Even in his cross-examination he has specifically deposed that he has done first off article inspection in his office and to know the contour details he went to design department who orally informed him that such part is not required in future and he has not asked them to give it in writing and he returned to his office and informed the same to the concerned officer in Outsourcing Department. Therefore, considering the entire evidence deposed by PW.18, his evidence is consistent, supported from the endorsement made by him in the Inspection Report and there are no reason to disbelieve his evidence about the inspection and endorsement made by him.
31 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
41. Thirdly, looking to the evidence of PW.10 Sri. T. Srihari, Chief Manager (Vigilance), HAL who conducted internal investigation as Senior Manager (Vigilance), HAL and submitted his report as per Ex.P58. He has deposed that as per Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c), the parts were not cleared by inspection. As per the records, no communication was given to M/s Dynatech to commence bulk machining i.e., mass production. In July 2007, production query was raised by Methods Dept. and then Design Dept. gave disposition that parts ordered under aforesaid four purchase orders are not required for production and the same was deleted. Ex.P58(b) is the production query given by Methods Dept.
42. PW.10 has deposed his evidence regarding the internal investigation conducted by him by verifying the records of each department pertaining to four purchase orders of M/s. HAL to M/s. Dynatech for supply of brackets. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for accused and nothing has been elicited during his cross- examination to disprove or disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10 and the contents of Ex.P58 are admissible in evidence and supporting the case of the prosecution.
32 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
43. Fourthly, looking to the evidence of PW.21 Sri.Ranganatha Swamy, Senior Manager (Design), HAL has deposed that Ex.P58(b) is the production query and he has put the endorsement on the said query as "The above mentioned parts are not required for production of Helicopter, applicability on wheel navy helicopter will be deleted as per Ex.P58(b-a) and his signature is at Ex.P58(b-b).
44. As seen from the evidence of PW.21, who raised the production query as per Ex.P58(b-a), there is no cross- examination to this witness and evidence deposed by him is unchallenged in any manner. Therefore, his unchallenged evidence and the endorsement made by him as per Ex.P58(b-a) is supporting the case of the prosecution.
45. Fifthly, looking to the evidence of PW.11 Sri. C. Mallikarjun, Manager, HAL has deposed that with regard to first off pilot parts as per Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c) acceptance was not made since it was not cleared by inspection and they were held up due to contour details. The production query was raised by the Methods Department.
46. As seen from the evidence of pw.11, his evidence is also supporting the case of the prosecution for Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c). Based on the evidence of PW.5, 10, 11, 18, 20 and 33 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J 21 deposed before the court, I will consider the relevant documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution in support of its allegations.
47. It is admitted that Ex.P50 and Ex.P53 are the two purchase order files for Nos. 5551998 and 5551999 respectively. Admittedly, Ex.P50(c) and Ex.P53(c) are the first article final inspection reports. The endorsement Ex.P50(i) made by PW.18 and his signature has been proved from his evidence. Further, Ex.P53(i) is the endorsement made by accused No.2 and his signature is Ex.P53(j) has been proved from the evidence of PW.18. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P53(i) accused No.2 himself has made endorsement stating that "part dimensionally found satisfactory except contour details". It bears the signature of accused No.2 as per Ex.P53(j). As per the evidence deposed by the witnesses and the contents of the documents, the contour details were not cleared for first off pilot parts. Ignoring the endorsement made by accused No.2 personally as per Ex.P53(i), it is contended that the first off pilot parts were inspected and approved for bulk production by M/s. HAL and oral information was given to M/s. Dynatech for bulk machining.
34 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
48. Regarding first off pilot parts, it is pertinent to consider the contents of report Ex.P58 of PW.10 at para No.(k) and (l) which reads as follows: -
(k) PO file 5551999 contained 'First Article Final Inspection Report' of bracket (part No.201 Y 966H 1070 201 LH) dated 12.7.2007 with remarks "part dimensionally found satisfactory. Except contour details". Also photocopy of DC No. 120 dated 7.8.07 of M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices vide which 01 bracket (part No. 201 Y 966H 1070 201 LH) was supplied by the vendor was found filed in the file. As per file, no payment has been made for this item (enclosure 28 to 29).
(l) PO file 5551998 contained 'First Article Final Inspection Report' of bracket (part No.201 Y 966H 1075 201 LH) dated 22.6.2007 with remarks "part dimensionally found satisfactory. Except contour details". Also photocopy of DC No. 72 dated 22.6.07 of M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices vide which 01 bracket (part No. 201 Y 966H 1075 201 LH) was supplied by the vendor was found filed in the file. As per file, no payment has been made for this item (enclosure 30 to 31).
49. In Ex.P58, there is a original letter of Sri. N. Nagabhushanam, AGM (OS, M&T) HAL written to PW.10 as per Ex.P58(a) dated 9.2.2012 and it is pertinent to note the contents of para No.1 of the said letter which reads as follows: -
8 brackets of the structural assembly module were ordered on M/s. Dynatech vide four PO. Nos.
5551997, 1998, 1999, 2000 in 2005. The parts were required for the wheel version of the ALH. Design Department has later deleted this part as not 35 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J required as it is only for naval wheel version. Part deletion letter from design is enclosed as E-1.
50. Regarding production query Ex.P58(b), the same has been proved from the evidence of PW.21. The endorsement made by PW.21 in Ex.P58(b) as per Ex.P58(ba) reads as follows:
-
"The above mentioned parts are not required for production of helicopter, applicability on wheel navy helicopters will be deleted".
51. Regarding Ex.P58(b), the learned counsel for accused argued that it is a Xerox copy of production query and original is not produced before the court, therefore the same is not admissible in evidence to prove the contents of the said document. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P58(b) is an enclosure to internal investigation report Ex.P58. While marking Ex.P58(b), it was not objected in any manner and the same has been marked and received in evidence. Further, the evidence of PW.21 through whom the document is marked is unchallenged in any manner. Therefore, there cannot be any subsequent objection about the admissibility of the document at the time of arguments. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused regarding this document.
36 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
52. On 23.7.2007 itself, PW.21 Senior Manager (Design), HAL has made endorsement stating that the part Nos. 201 Y 966H 1070 201 LH and 201 Y 966H 1075 201 LH are not required for production of helicopter and applicability on wheel navy helicopters will be deleted. This endorsement made by the Senior Manager on 23.7.2007 itself proves that no final approval was given for taking bulk machining for purchase of the brackets as per the four Purchase Orders of HAL to M/s. Dynatech.
53. PW.11 has deposed that the non-approval of the first off pilot parts was informed orally to accused No.3 of M/s. Dynatech. Further, he has deposed that the production query was raised by one Sri. Manoj of Methods Department as per Ex.P73(a). Further, he deposed that when he came to know that the production query was raised and the brackets were not required, he intimated the same to Mr. Hemanth (Accused No.3) verbally not to commence bulk machining and requested to return the raw materials. Further, he also deposed that copy of the production query at Ex.P73(a) was also sent to Accused No.3 through his representative A.P. Lokesh. He has also deposed that inspite of his repeated remainders, accused No.3 did not return the raw material without quoting any reason. In July 2008, he was transferred from Outsourcing Department to 37 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Maintenance Department and during the time of his relieving from Outsourcing Department, he had briefed all these facts to his successor Sri. M.S. Sanjay (Accused No.1). Nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence deposed before the court. He has admitted about the delegation of powers as per Ex.D27.
54. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the first off pilot parts submitted by M/s. Dynatech were not approved for taking bulk machining and the same was informed to accused No.3 by PW.11.
I) PROCEDURE FOR RECEIVING OF PARTS SUPPLIED BY VENDORS AND OFFERING THE PARTS FOR INSPECTION IN HAL:
55. It is clearly admitted regarding the procedure for receiving of parts supplied by vendors and offering the parts for inspection in HAL. PW.1 Addl. General Manager has deposed about the procedure for receipt of parts supplied by vendors and offering the parts for inspection in HAL. PW.5 Senior Manager in Outsourcing Department, HAL has deposed in detail about the procedure. He has deposed that in the Helicopter Division during January 2011 to March 2011 in respect of receipt of parts/ 38 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J components supplied by vendors of Outsourcing Dept., inspection of these parts, raising Receiving Reports (RRs), moving of parts for finishing operation, tagging of parts after finishing operations etc.
56. He further deposed that when a part comes to security, it will be checked by Security Personnel with reference to Delivery Challan in terms of quantity and Security Staff will put stamp on DC and then it will be moved inside and pass through Outsourcing Dept., but, Security Personnel will not check with regard to technical specifications of the parts.
57. Further he has deposed that when the part is delivered to Outsourcing Dept., the designated person will receive those components and enter in the register maintained by him and acknowledge the DC. At that time, one Job Contract Labour (JCL) was there. The said JCL will take out of the Route Card which was generated while delivering raw materials to the vendor and along with the part and Route Card and Inspection Report, he will hand over the parts, Route Card and Inspection Report to Quality Dept. He will hand over original DC and other documents to concerned officer. If the parts are smaller, they are given directly and if parts are heavier, they will be kept in the quality dept. Then the Inspector of Quality Dept will inspect 39 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the parts. Then the Inspector will clear the parts for further operations and he will endorse the same on the Route Card for having cleared the parts and hand over to the Outsourcing Dept.
58. He has further deposed that if the parts are found satisfactory in Inspection, the receiving report will be generated by the outsourcing dept. and it will be signed by the Inspector, who had inspected the part and on some occasion, the Inspector will make initial and concerned Official will sign the Inspection Report.
59. He has further deposed that if once the part is cleared in the inspection, it will be sent for Finishing Process. Thereafter in the Finishing Process, one job ticket will be made by the Process Shop Progress and then the part will be loaded for the finishing operation. Once the finishing operation is cleared, the part will be moved back to Quality Control Dept., where it was initially cleared for finishing. After that tagging is done by Quality Assurance Dept. and after tagging, those parts will be taken to stores for crediting them there. The finishing operation will be done by Process Shop. The Outsourcing Dept. is responsible for moving the parts from finishing operations, packing dept., tagging and store credit. There is no dispute 40 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J about the evidence deposed by PW.5 for the above procedure to be followed while receiving the articles from the vendors in HAL.
60. Apart from the oral evidence of PW.5, there is a documentary evidence as per Ex.P127 for procedure to be followed. There is no dispute about the detail procedure prescribed in Ex.P127 through the letter dated 12.11.2009. Hence, the prosecution has proved the procedure to be followed in receiving of articles from the vendors in HAL and offering the articles for inspection.
J) REGARDING SUPPLY OF THE ARTICLES BY M/S. DYNATECH TO M/S. HAL AS PER THE PURCHASE ORDERS:
61. It is admitted that all the four Pos., Ex.P49, 50, 53 and 54 were placed on M/s. Dynatech for supply of the following components/parts.
PO No Date PO Value Item Qty
(Rs)
5551997 23/06/2005 5,36,850/- 201Y 966H 1070 201 LH Bracket 07
LH #4 ISS'A'PS-26154
201Y 966H 1070 202 RH Bracket
07
RH #4 ISS'A'PS-26154
5551998 23/06/2005 5,36,850/- 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH Bracket - 07
LH ISS'A'PS-26155
41 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
201Y 966H 1075 202 RH Bracket 07
RH - ISS'A'PS-26155
5551999 27/09/2005 5,36,850/- 201Y 966H 1070 201 LH-1 07
Bracket LH#4 ISS'A'PS-26154
201Y 966H 1070 202 RH-1
07
Bracket RH#4 ISS'A'PS-26154
5552000 14/10/2005 5,36,850/- 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH-1 07
Bracket- LH ISS'A'PS-26155
201Y 966H 1075 202 RH-1
07
Bracket-RH ISS'A'PS-26155
62. There is a serious dispute regarding supply of finished 54 brackets by M/s. Dynatech to M/s. HAL as per four purchase orders contained in Ex.P49, 50, 53 & 54. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that during January and February 2011 i.e., after almost four years of issue of raw materials, M/s. Dynatech supplied some other small unwanted parts in lieu of brackets mentioned in the Delivery Challans even without clearance of first off pilot pieces and pre-dispatch inspection. It is the defence of accused that as per the description of article in the purchase orders, they have supplied the brackets mentioned in the Delivery Challans, the same were received, inspected, further processed and they have not supplied some other unwanted articles in lieu of brackets as alleged by the prosecution. Looking to the serious denial made 42 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J by the accused for non-supply of the brackets, the heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its allegation as alleged.
63. In this regard, firstly the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW1. Sri. Suryakanth Noubad, Addl. General Manager, CMD, HAL who has deposed that he is working in HAL from 1982. As AGM it was his duty to outsource components required for manufacture of helicopter. For outsourcing the parts of helicopter, scheduling parts would advise their outsourcing department to outsource the components required for manufacture of helicopter. After receipt of requirement advised by the scheduling department, they will send request for quotation, on receipt of quotation, they prepare comparative statement of all quotations received from the vendor and select the lowest quotation of the bidders and place orders and the vendor has to fabricate first off pilot part and same will be inspected either in the site of the vendor or in the site of the HAL by the HAL Inspectors and after the inspection, the bulk manufacturing of the parts will be completed and supplied to HAL.
64. Further, he has deposed that regarding the allegations of this case PW.10 has conducted internal investigation and submitted his report. He has lodged the 43 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J complaint before the CBI as per Ex.P1. Accused No.1 and 2 colluded with M/s. Dynatech, the parts of brackets which were supposed to be supplied to HAL were not supplied and instead of the same, some other parts are supplied and payments were made. Though this witness has been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disprove his evidence. His evidence is proving that he has lodged the complaint before the CBI as per Ex.P1 against the accused.
65. Secondly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.5 Senior Manager in Outsourcing Department who has deposed that DC bearing DC No. 1070 which is at Ex.P.60(b) and it does not bear any signature of official of Outsourcing Dept. for having received the materials. DC bearing DC No. 1126 dt: 07.02.2011 is at Ex.P.59(b) and it does not bear any signature of official of Outsourcing Dept. for having received the materials. DC bearing DC No. 1125 dt: 07.02.2011 is at Ex.P.61(b) and it does not bear any signature of official of Outsourcing Dept. for having received the materials. DC no.1048 dt: 19.01.2011 is at Ex.P.62(b) and it does not bear any signature of Outsourcing Dept. for having received the materials.
66. Further, he has deposed that ALH incoming register volume no.8 for the period 2.11.2010 to 2.5.2011 is at Ex.P.63 44 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J and serial no.806 and 807 in Ex.P.63 dt: 07.02.2011, under which two brackets were received. The said two entries are at Ex.P.63(a). Ex.P.63(a) parts pertain to purchase order No.5551997 and 5551999. Under Ex.P.63(a), brackets 7 in numbers and 6 in numbers were received.
67. Further, he has deposed that except the parts shown in Ex.P.63(a), no other parts have been received from M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices by the Outsourcing Dept. which are covered under other DCs and no such entries are made in Ex.P.63. Though DCs contain the date 03.02.2011, they do not tally with the receipt of parts from M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices as per Ex.P.63 ALH Incoming Register. The evidence deposed by PW.5 is supported from the evidence of other witnesses. His evidence is consistent and reliable evidence to prove the allegations of the prosecution. In the light of evidence deposed by PW.5 before the court, if the contents of the documents are looked into Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(b) Ex.P.61(b) and Ex.P.62(b) Delivery Challans of M/s. Dynatech do not bear any signature of official of Outsourcing Department for having received the materials. Further, on perusal of entries made in Ex.P.63 ALH Incoming Register at Ex.P.63(a), it is seen that there is entry at Sl. No.806 and 807 which shows that under 45 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Purchase Order No.5551997 and 5551999 brackets 7 in numbers and 6 in numbers were received.
68. Thirdly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.10 who has conducted detail internal investigation into the allegations. He has deposed that, the parts were purportedly supplied by M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices during January- February of 2011. The parts were purportedly supplied on four different dates vide 8 delivery challans and they are at Ex.P.59(a), Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(a) and Ex.P.60(b) and Ex.P.61(a) and Ex.P.61(b) and Ex.P.62(a) and Ex.P.62(b).
69. Then he has deposed that Ex.P.63 is the ALH Incoming Register maintained in Outsourcing Dept. wherein entries will be made whenever any materials are received in Outsourcing Dept. Though materials were said to be received under 8 different DCs on four different dates, only two entries pertaining to two DCs have been made as per Ex.P.63(a) and remaining six entries pertaining to six DCs do not find place in Ex.P.63.
70. Further, he has deposed that as per records, no finishing operation of the brackets were carried out. As per records, these brackets were supposed to be inspected by three inspectors under IFS [ERP system]. The said IFS shows that 46 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J these brackets were inspected by three Inspectors i.e., Sri. Ajith Kumar M.V., Sri.Venkatesh. M and Sri. H.M. Ramesh [accused no.2]. The IFS shows that Ajith Kumar had inspected and cleared brackets received against five DCs. The brackets against two DCs were inspected and cleared by Venkatesh.M., but bracket was received against one DC was inspected and cleared by Sri. H.M. Ramesh.
71. He has further deposed that as per records, Sri. Ajith Kumar M.V was not present in the Helicopter Division, when these parts were supposed to have been inspected and cleared against five DCs., but said parts were inspected and cleared by using his ID. As per the investigation made by him in the system, the parts were released for finishing operations. During his investigation Sri. Ajith Kumar denied for having inspected and cleared the parts and he had not seen the parts. Venkatesh. M had also denied for having cleared the parts and for having seen the parts. No documents are available with the Quality Dept. and Inspection Dept. for having received these parts.
72. He has further deposed that as per the records, the parts were purportedly supplied without any clearance of First Off Pilot [sample piece] and no pre-dispatch inspection was carried out and no intimation was received from the vendor i.e., 47 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices regarding readiness of the parts and requesting HAL to depute Inspector for inspection. As per the records, even process shop had not received these parts for finishing operations. The person responsible for moving the parts from View Room to the Process Shop for carrying out finishing operations has not seen these parts. As per records, the parts were not tagged and final inspection was not carried out after finishing operation and the parts were not credited to the stores nor the parts are traced.
73. He has further deposed that as per the procedures, the RRs during that period were to be raised after inspection of the parts. However, in all these 8 instances, the RRs were raised before the Inspection of the parts. Usually, there will be time gap of two or three days between the inspection and raising the receiving reports, but in the present instance, the RRs were raised earlier to the Inspection and inspection of parts and the RRs have been cleared simultaneously in the ERP [Enterprise Resource Planning] system.
74. He has further deposed that as part of investigation, he also verified the Route Cards pertaining to 8 work orders which are linked to DCs. When part is submitted to Quality Dept. for inspection, the Route Card will also move with the part i.e. 48 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the Route Card is enclosed along with other documents by the Outsourcing Dept. and submit to the Quality Dept. Once the Inspector clears the part, he signs the Route Card. Then the Route Card along with part moves for further operation. Once the part is finally inspected and tagged, the Route Card will be retained by the Quality Dept., but in the present case, the Route Cards do not bear the signature of inspectors, who allegedly inspected the parts. Ajith Kumar, Venkatesh and accused no.2 H.M.Ramesh have not signed the Route Cards and Route Cards, at Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h). Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h) do not bear the signature of any Inspectors namely Ajith Kumar, Venkatesh or H.M. Ramesh. As part of investigation, he received the said Route Cards from the Outsourcing Dept. in the year 2012 and till then they were in Outsourcing Dept. instead of in the Quality Dept.
75. He has further deposed that all the 8 RRs at Ex.P.59(j), Ex.P.59(k), Ex.P.60(e), Ex.P.60(i), Ex.P.61(e), Ex.P.61(j), Ex.P.62(e) and Ex.P.62(j), are cleared by accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh and he has signed them for having cleared the said RRs.
76. He has further deposed that based on his investigation and records, he came to the conclusion that 49 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J accused no.1 and 2 in connivance with M/s Dynatech manipulated the records and showed that the materials were supplied to HAL though said materials were not supplied to HAL.
77. As seen from the entire evidence deposed by PW.10 before the court, he was working as Senior Manager (Vigilance) at the time of his internal investigation. Presently he is the head of the Vigilance of Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. On the instructions of Chief Manager (Vigilance), he conducted internal investigation into the allegations after verifying all the records available in the Helicopter Division, HAL, recorded the statements of the employees and submitted his detail investigation report as per Ex.P.58 along with the records collected by him from various departments. PW.10 has deposed his evidence with regard to each and every transaction based on the records and prepared his report Ex.P.58. When he has conducted internal investigation by verifying the records, there are no reasons to disbelieve his evidence deposed before the court. His evidence is supported from the documents produced before the court and supported from the version of other witnesses examined before the court. Therefore, his evidence is cogent and reliable evidence and proving the contents of Ex.P.58, the internal investigation report. The entire original 50 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J internal investigation report along with enclosures has been produced before the court by the prosecution in support of its case. Therefore, the contents of Ex.P.58 and the enclosures are admissible in evidence to prove the allegations of the prosecution.
78. On perusal of the report Ex.P.58, the source for taking the internal investigation and the gist of allegations are clearly mentioned. Further, the facts, observations, responses of officials, conclusion, responsibility of the officials, recommendation for action and recommendation for systematic improvement in the systems and procedure being followed in the outsourcing department of HAL, Bengaluru for procuring the articles are mentioned in detail.
79. In the light of investigation done by PW.10, his oral evidence deposed before the court, if the documentary evidence placed before the court is appreciated many of the allegations are proved from his evidence. Regarding Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(b), Ex.P.61(b) and Ex.P.62(b) he has deposed his evidence stating that none of them bears the signature of official of outsourcing department for having received the materials. Then he has deposed about Ex.P.63 and the entries at Sl. No.606 and 607 dated 7.2.2011. Then he has deposed that 51 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J except the parts shown in Ex.P.63(a), no other parts have been received from M/s. Dynatech by the Outsourcing Department which are covered under other DCs and no such entries are made in Ex.P.63. Then he has deposed that though DCs contain the date 3.2.2011, they do not tally with the receipt of parts from M/s. Dynatech as per Ex.P63 ALH Incoming Register. Further, he has deposed that the parts were purportedly supplied by M/s. Dynatech during January-February 2011. The parts were purportedly supplied on 4 different dates vide 8 delivery challans at Ex.P.59(a), Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(a), Ex.P.60(b), Ex.P.61(a), Ex.P.61(b) and Ex.P.62(a) and Ex.P.62(b). Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.63 is maintained in the Outsourcing Department wherein entries will be made whenever any materials are received in Outsourcing Department and though materials were said to be received under 8 different DCs on four different dates, only two entries pertaining to two DCs have been made as per Ex.P.63(a) and remaining 6 entries pertaining to 6 DCs do not find place in Ex.P.63. This evidence of PW.10 is very relevant to prove that only entry at Ex.P.63(a) is forthcoming in Ex.P.63 in respect of two DCs and there is no entry in respect of other 6 DCs for receiving of goods in Ex.P.63. Further, on careful perusal of Ex.P.59(b) DC No.1126 dated 52 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J 7.2.2011, Ex.P.60(a) DC No.1047 dated 19.1.2011, Ex.P.60(b) DC No.1070 dated 27.1.2011, Ex.P.61(b) DC No.1125 dated 7.2.2011, Ex.P.62(a) DC NO.1071 dated 27.1.2011 and Ex.P.62(b) DC No. 1048 dated 19.1.2011 no entries are forthcoming about those DCs in Ex.P.63 to prove that the articles /parts mentioned therein have been received in the outsourcing department of HAL on the respective dates.
80. Further, PW.10 has deposed that once the inspector clears the part, he signs the route card, then the route card along with the part move for further operation and once the part is finally inspected and tagged, the route card will be retained by the Quality Department, but in the present case, the route cards do not bear the signature of Inspectors, who allegedly inspected the parts. Further, he has deposed that Ajith Kumar Venkatesh and accused No.2 have not signed on the route cards at Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h) and he received the said route cards from the outsourcing department in the year 2012 and till then they were in the outsourcing department instead of in the Quality Department. Based on the evidence of PW.10, if the contents of Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h) are perused, they do not bear the signature of the Inspectors for having inspected those articles by them in the Outsourcing Department. Further, there 53 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J is no endorsement in those records as per the columns prescribed therein in the other departments. It is also pertinent to note that once the articles are inspected and cleared in the Outsourcing Department, the route card has to be signed by the Inspector and the same has to accompany the article and the said record has to be maintained in the Quality Department but in the present case Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h) 8 route cards were found in the outsourcing department without accompanying the articles said to have been received and not maintained in the quality department as per procedure. It is also pertinent to note that during his investigation, PW.10 has collected Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h) from outsourcing department during 2012 at the time of his internal inspection. Therefore, in respect of Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h), no proper procedure has been followed to accompany with the article and to maintain them in the Quality Department. If the articles mentioned in the DCs were really received in the outsourcing department, inspected then the article would have been further processed along with the route cards. When the route cards were still lying in the outsourcing department for a period of one year after the articles said to have been received under 6 DCs, this fact goes to show that there was no inspection of articles, not signed by the inspectors 54 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J on the route cards and not sent with article for further processing.
81. Further, PW.10 has deposed about 8 RRs at Ex.P.59(i), Ex.P.59(k), Ex.P.60(e), Ex.P.60(i), Ex.P.61(e), Ex.P.61(j), Ex.P.62(e) and Ex.P.62(j) are cleared by accused No.2 HM Ramesh and he has signed them for having cleared the said RRs. Further, he has deposed that as per the procedures, the RRs during that period were to be raised after inspection of the parts. However, in all these 8 instances, the RRs were raised before the Inspection of the parts. Usually, there will be time gap of two or three days between the inspection and raising the receiving reports, but in the present instance, the RRs were raised earlier to the inspection and inspection of parts and the RRs have been cleared simultaneously in the ERP [Enterprise Resource Planning] system. The generation and the contents of 8 Receiving Reports Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.59(i), Ex.P.59(k), Ex.P.60(e) and (i), Ex.P.61(e) and (j), Ex.P.62(e) and (j) are not disputed by any accused. These RRs have been signed by accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh. As per the evidence, it is forthcoming that these RRs were raised earlier to inspection of parts which is against the procedure prescribed for receiving of goods in the outsourcing department.
55 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
82. Further, PW.10 has deposed that the parts were purportedly supplied without any clearance of first off pilot (sample piece) and no pre-dispatch inspection was carried out and no intimation was received from the vendor i.e., M/s. Dynatech regarding readiness of the parts and requesting HAL to depute Inspector for inspection. The evidence of PW.10 proves that there was no pre-dispatch inspection carried out as per the procedure prescribed for procuring the articles. The evidence of PW.10 also proves that as per records, the parts were not tagged and final inspection was not carried out after finishing operations and the parts were not credited to the stores nor the parts are traced.
83. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the para-5 and 6 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"5. The PO & payment files didn't contain any other information/documents regarding utilization of part, reasons for supply of parts after such long delay, copy of any clearance given to vendor to commence serial production (bulk machining), copy of production query dated 23/07/2007 or any communication with vendor.
6. Information regarding utilization of the above components, location of balance components, pre dispatch inspection of these parts, copy of quality documents received with the parts, finishing operations carried out on the parts etc was sought from Outsourcing & Progress departments. In reply 56 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the following information was received from Outsourcing & Progress departments:
a) The parts ordered in these PO's were required for Naval Wheel version of the ALH but later vide Production Query H/DGM(M&T)/PQ/3526/07 dated 23/07/2007 the part was deleted by Design as it was not required for production Helicopters.
b) No record is available of any intimation given to M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices to stop production of these parts & return the raw material issued.
c) Entries of parts received vide DC's 1099 & 1100 are only found in the outsourcing incoming register.
d) There are no records of finishing operations carried out on these parts & that the parts are not available in store.
e) Detail of personnel who had inspected & cleared these parts for next operation (finishing operations) was forwarded.
f) No records of any intimation given by vendor regarding readiness of the components for pre dispatch inspection or details of pre dispatch inspection carried out are available.
g) There are no records of documents received with the items except Delivery Challans.
h) The cost of raw material issued to M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices vide MGP 6424/09039 dated 10/03/2007 is Rs.4,72,192/-.
57 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
i) Details of personnel responsible for carrying out various activities from the stage of dispatch of the components by vendor to their store crediting was forwarded. As per these details a JCL named Shri Prashant was responsible for receiving the parts in outsourcing department, printing route books for received parts & offering the parts with route books for inspection (View Room 2). Shri Girish an employee was responsible for moving the parts for finishing operations after inspection by View Room 2, moving the parts to view room 2 for inspection & tagging after completion of finishing operations & store crediting of tagged parts.
84. When the internal investigation report Ex.P.58 has been proved by examining the PW.10, it is relevant to note the observations and the conclusions made by the investigator into the allegations.
OBSERVATION:
(a) Brackets ordered vide POs 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000 were received during Jan/2011 i.e., after almost four years of loading of raw materials. As per the POs, items were to be supplied within 6 months of loading of raw material i.e., by September 2007.
(b) As per the document H/DGM(M&T)PQ/3526/07 dated 23.7.07, the brackets ordered vide POs 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000 were not required for production of Helicopters and the requirement was deleted.
(c) The brackets were supplied by the vendor without clearance of 'first off pilot piece' as per PO terms.
(d) No pre-dispatch inspection of these brackets as per PO terms was carried out.
58 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
(e) No quality documents pertaining to these brackets are available with Inspection Department.
(f) No finishing operation has been carried out on any of these brackets though as per IFS the items were released for finishing operations.
(g) The brackets have not been tagged or store credited and are missing.
(h) ID of Inspector of View Room-2 was misused to release some of the work orders for finishing operations in IFS.
(i) Route cards of these brackets were received from Outsourcing Department whereas as per procedure the route card moves with the parts till tagging of the parts. Also, the route cards do not bear signatures of the Inspectors who have supposedly inspected and cleared these parts, whereas as per procedure route cards are signed by Inspector clearing the parts.
(j) All the 8 RRs were generated before inspection of the parts, whereas as per procedure RR was generated after inspection of parts and there is a time gap of one or two days between these two activities.
(k) In case of five work orders, inspection and release of parts for finishing operations and clearance of the corresponding RRs took place simultaneously.
CONCLUSION:
Scrutiny of PO files 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 & 5552000, related documents and the statements given by the Shri MS Sanjay, Deputy Manager (Methods), Shri HM Ramesh, AE(QA) & others reveals that the parts (Brackets) ordered in the above PO's weren't supplied by M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices but Shri Hemant of M/s Dynatech Tools & Devices in connivance with Shri MS Sanjay, Deputy Manager (Methods) & Shri HM Ramesh, AE(QA)
59 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J managed clearance of the RR's of these parts (HB11- 2071, HB-2301, HA11-2184, HB11-2069, HB11- 2302, HB11-2072, HA11-2185 & HB11-2070) & cheated HAL Helicopter Division of Rs.22,67,189/- during March 2011. Out of this Rs.17,70,449/- is the direct payment received by the firm from the Division against RR's HB11-2071, HB-2301, HA11- 2184, HB11-2069, HB11-2302, HB11-2072, HA11- 2185 & HB11-2070, Rs.41,412/- is the TDS deducted and deposited by the Division & Rs.4,55,328/- is the cost of raw material (54 aluminum flats) which the firm was to return to the Division.
85. Fourthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of pw.12 Sri. N. Jayasimha, Jamedar, Security Department, HAL. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that he has been working in the Security Dept of HAL from 2007 and earlier also he was working there and from 2007 to August 2013, he was working in the Security Division of HAL, Bengaluru. Then he has deposed that his duties and responsibilities include, to check up the employees when they enter HAL in the morning and checkup the materials to be received by HAL and check up the ingressing and aggressing vehicles. They check up Delivery Challan and quantity of materials in the vehicle as compared with Delivery Challan and put the seal on the delivery challan, if the number and quantity of materials on DC tally with the number of materials in the vehicle. They also check up the purchase order in order to ascertain to which division the 60 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J materials belongs to. They put the vehicle number while putting seal on Delivery Challan. They used to check quantity of materials and not the specification of the materials and for what purpose the said materials will be used. They have maintained separate Register for receiving the materials by HAL and for sending materials from HAL. Further, he has deposed that under Ex.P.59(b), 7 quantity of materials were received and they checked the quantity and put the seal. Further, under Ex.P.61(b) 7 quantity of materials had come to HAL and the same has been entered in the register. Ex.P.74 is the material incoming entry register and relevant entries at Ex.P.74(a) for Ex.P.59(b) and Ex.P.61(b). The evidence deposed by PW.12 regarding the procedure in the Security Department is not disputed. Further, his evidence for receiving of 14 quantity of materials as mentioned in Ex.P.74(a) is also not disputed. As per his evidence, the identification of materials will be made by Inspection Department and his duty is only to check the quantity and not the specifications mentioned in the DCs.
86. Fifthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.13 Sri. K.V. Venkateshalu, Jamedar, Security Department, who has deposed about the bringing of the quantity of articles from M/s. Dynatech mentioned in the DCs. His evidence is not 61 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J disputed in any manner. As per his evidence, at the Security Gate, the quantity will be counted and not the specification of the article packed in the boxes. As per the evidence of PW.13, under Ex.P60(a) 7 quantity of articles as per Ex.P62(b) 7 quantity of articles were received at security gate. Pw.13 has entered the receipt of quantity of articles in Ex.P78 material incoming register.
87. Sixthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.14 Sri. B.N. Venugopal, Jamedar, Security Department, who has deposed about the quantity of materials to be checked at security gate and receipt of material under Ex.P60(b), 62(a) and entries in Ex.P74 as per Ex.P74(b). There is no dispute about the evidence deposed by PW.14.
88. Seventhly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.15 Sri. K.C. Mahesh, Subedar, Security Department, who has deposed about the quantity of materials to be checked at security gate and receipt of material under Ex.P59(a) and 61(a) and relevant entry in Ex.P74 as per Ex.P74(b). There is no dispute about the evidence deposed by PW.15 and the entries in Ex.P74 and his signatures.
89. Eighthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.17 Sri. B.R. Girish, Senior Assistant, Outsourcing 62 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Department, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that from 16.7.2007, he has been working as Sr. Assistant, Outsourcing Dept., Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. As a Sr. Asst. his duties are to in-house follow up of finished parts at Process Shop, which includes the movement of parts from View Room-2 to Process Shop Progress Dept. Then he enter what ever parts received from View Room-2 to Process Dept., in the Register called as Process Shop Register and then inform the same to Process Shop Dept., Personnel. Thereafter, the parts which were received in the Process Shop Dept., will be moved to the View Room-2, which will be moved by Process Shop Department. Then after tagging the said parts will be moved to Stores, which he used to enter in the Store Credit Form and then moved the parts to the stores. Then, he used to take signature from the Stores and file the same papers i.e. Store Credit Forms in his Department. The Store Credit Forms will be filled up by him.
90. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.49(a), Ex.P.50(a), Ex.P.53(a) and Ex.P.54(a) are the purchase orders bearing Nos.5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000 under which 7 plus 7 Brackets each were ordered. During his service, he has not seen the said Brackets 14 in numbers each in the above 63 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J mentioned purchase orders, moving from View Room to the Process Shop and then from View Room-2 to Stores. He had never moved the said Brackets from View Room-2 to Store and he had not seen the said Brackets. Accused No.1 had never asked him to move the said Brackets from View Room-2 to Store. He is familiar with the signature of Accused No.1.
91. Further he has deposed that Ex.P.49(g), Ex.P.50(g), Ex.P.53(g) and Ex.P.54(f) are the Sub Contract Payment Advice of 4 Purchase Orders and they contains the signature of Accused No.1 at Ex.P.49(h), Ex.P.50(h), Ex.P53(h) and Ex.P54(g). This witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused and nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disprove his evidence. The learned counsel for accused relied upon the two admissions made by this witness in his cross- examination. First admission is that he will not obtain any separate acknowledgment, but he will ensure that the goods are entered in the concerned register. This admission is not helpful to the accused in any manner to prove their defence because the suggestion is against the procedure prescribed for receiving of articles. The second admission is that the register maintained in the further processing department is a conclusive proof for receipt of goods by that department. This admission is also not 64 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J helpful to the defence because no such register is before the court to prove that the articles alleged to have been received at outsourcing department are received in further processing department and entered in the concerned register. Therefore, the evidence of PW.17 is supporting the case of the prosecution and proving that he has not seen the brackets and not moved the 54 brackets from View Room to process shop and then from View Room-2 to stores.
92. Ninthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.19 Sri. A. Bhanuprakash, Asst. Supervisor, Program Engineering Department, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that accused No.1 was head of their outsourcing department at the relevant time and the particulars of Delivery Challans at Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(a), Ex.P.60(b), Ex.P.61(b), Ex.P.62(a) and Ex.P.62(b) are not mentioned in Ex.P.63 ALH Incoming Register on the relevant dates or just earlier or on subsequent dates. He has further deposed that whenever particulars pertaining to DCs are not shown in ALH Incoming Register it goes to show that the said materials shown in the DCs are not received in the outsourcing department. Further, he has deposed that he has generated Ex.P.49(c), Ex.P.49(d), Ex.P.50(d) and Ex.P.50(e), 65 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P.53(c) and Ex.P.53(d), Ex.P.54(c) and Ex.P.54(d) and they bear his signature. Further, he has deposed that the route cards will be generated by outsourcing department and it will be affixed along with the material and it will be moved to Inspection Department and if the material is inspected, the details of the same are to be mentioned in the route card and in Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h), there is no mentioning of inspection of goods pertaining to all four purchase orders. Further, he has deposed that RRs are to be generated on receipt of DCs and the materials shown therein and based on the instruction of accused No.1 to generate the RRs he has generated the above mentioned RRs and he had not seen the materials shown in the DCs while generating the RRs and as per rules the said materials need not be shown to him while generating RRs. As seen from the cross- examination, the evidence deposed by him is not shaken in any manner. Therefore, the evidence of PW.19 is a cogent evidence supported from the documents is helpful to the prosecution and supporting its allegations.
93. His evidence proves that whenever particulars pertaining to DCs are not shown in ALH Incoming Register, it means that the said materials are not received in the outsourcing department. Further, his evidence proves that he 66 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J has generated the RRs based on the instructions given by accused No.1 who was the head of outsourcing department at that time. Further, his evidence proves that in the route cards Ex.P.51(a) to Ex.P.51(h) there is no mention for inspection of goods pertaining to four purchase orders. Further, his evidence proves that he had not seen the materials mentioned in the DCs while generating the RRs.
94. Tenthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.20 Sri. M.V.Ajith Kumar, Inspector who is working in Outsourcing Department of HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that from 2005 he is working as Inspector in the Outsourcing Department of HAL, knew accused No.2 who was working as Supervisor in Outsourcing Department of HAL, Bengaluru and worked with him for a period of 6 years and therefore he is familiar with his handwriting and signature. Then he has deposed that there was computer system in HAL when he was working in HAL in 2012 and he was assigned with ID No. 69515 and the ID No. of Accused No.2 was 66513.
95. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.49(c), Ex.P.49(d), Ex.P.50(d), Ex.P.50(e), Ex.P.53(c) and Ex.P.53(d) are the Receiving Reports signed by accused No.2 for having cleared the RRs. Further, he has deposed that in all the 8 route cards 67 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P.51, the stamp has been put while delivering the raw materials to the vendor but no stamp or endorsement are made on them for having received the finished goods and he had not inspected any materials pertaining to the said RRs and no supervisor of him or higher officer had directed him to inspect the materials shown in the said RRs.
96. Then he has deposed that in Ex.P.58 investigation report, at page No. 108 to 125 is a loggin report. On 29.01.2011 at 8:26:39 he had not logged into his Id., but the loggin is made to his Id from View Room-2 /view no.2 as per Ex.P. 58 (o-o). On 29.01.2011 he came late at about 10.00 am and immediate next to the logging at Ex.P.58 (o-o), the logging was made to Id no. 66513 belonging to Accused No.2.
97. Then he has deposed that on 19.02.2011 at 9:55:17 am the loggin was made to his Id from view room/ view2 as per Ex.P.58 (p-p). On 19.02.2011 he was on leave and he has not used his Id and logged in Ex.P.58(p-p) and immediate prior and next of Ex.P.58(p-p), the loggin was made to Id no. 66513 belonging to Accused no.2.
98. Then he has deposed that on 26.02.2011 at 11:01:38 am the loggin was made to his Id from view room view2 as per Ex.P.58 (q-q). On 26.02.2011 he was on official 68 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J duty in Hyderabad and he has not used his Id and logged in as per Ex.P.58 (q-q) and immediate prior to Ex.P.58(q-q), the loggin was made through Id no. 66513 belonging to Accused no.2.
99. Then he has deposed that IFS data base record at page 164 & 165 of Ex.P.58 and they reveal who had issued work order and who had cleared RR and who had recommended for release of finished goods. The said IFS Data base record in Page No. 165 is at Ex.P 58 (r-r). The work order No. 750521 7560 was cleared from Id no. 66513 belonging to Accused no.2 and RR pertaining to said work order was cleared by Accused no. 2 and RR was cleared on 26.02.2011at 11:05 am and inspection was also completed on 26.02.2011.
100. The RR and inspection pertaining to work order no. 7505217555 were cleared by Accused No.2 on 29.01.2011 at 9.00 am and on 29.01.2011 at 8.28 am respectively. The RR and inspection pertaining to work order no. 7505217556 were cleared by Accused No.2 on 16.02.2011 at 11:08 am and on 29.01.2011 at 8:27:24 am respectively.
101. The RR and inspection pertaining to work order no. 7505217553 were cleared by Accused No.2 on 19.02.2011 at 9:59 am and on 19.02.2011 at 9:56:17 am respectively.
69 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
102. The RR and inspection pertaining to work order no. 7505217557 were cleared by Accused No.2 on 19.02.2011 at 9:58 am and on 19.02.2011 at 9:25:01 am respectively.
103. The RR and inspection pertaining to work order no. 7505217559 were cleared by Accused No.2 on 26.02.2011 at 11:05 am and on 26.02.2011 at 11:02:18 am respectively. In respect of inspection report pertaining to work orders have been made by using his Id but RR were cleared by Accused no.2 by using his Id.
104. Further, he has deposed that he has not cleared the said inspection reports by his Id. Their inspection room is very small and inside the room 12 employees have been working and therefore accused No. 2 might have observed his Id and he has used his Id to clear the Inspection reports.
105. Further he has deposed that he had applied causal leave on 17.02.2011 to 21.02.2011 and on 5.03.2011 as per Ex.P.79 and the sanctioning authority has signed Ex.P.79 for having sanctioned the leave and Ex.P80 is his traveling expenses claim for having traveled on OOD to Bengaluru from 22.02.2011 to 03.03.2011. Ex.P.81 is the attendance (punch in/punch out details). On 29.01.2011 he came late by 10.04 am as per Ex.P.81. Ex.P.79 to 81 have been certified by HRO of HAL.
70 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
106. This witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused and he is trying to elicit that there was no misuse of his ID from accused No.2. Further, in his cross- examination admitted about Ex.D28 and D29. Looking to the entire cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disprove his evidence deposed before the court. It is not disputed that since 2005 he is working as Inspector in Outsourcing Department of HAL, his ID No., and ID No., of accused No.2 provided for doing their day to day work on the system. Further, he has worked with accused No.2 for a period of 6 years and acquainted with his handwriting and signature is also not disputed. His evidence is also proving that Ex.P49(c), Ex.P49(d), Ex.P50(d) and Ex.P50(e), Ex.P53(c) and Ex.P.54(d) bear the signature of accused No.2 for having cleared the RRs. Further, his evidence proves that Ex.P.51 bear the seal for delivering raw material and no seal or endorsement is forthcoming on them to show the receipt of the finished products from M/s. Dynatech and further processed. Further, his evidence also proves that he had not inspected any materials pertaining to the above said RRs and there was no direction to him to inspect the materials mentioned in those RRs.
71 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
107. Further, the evidence of PW.20 proves that he was on leave on 17.2.2011, 19.2.2011 to 21.2.2011 and on 5.3.2011 as per Ex.P.79. Further, as per Ex.P.80 he was on OOD to Bengaluru from 22.2.2011 to 3.3.2011. Further, as per Ex.P.81 his attendance (punch in and punch out) details and time of arrival is also proves that on 29.1.2011 he came late to the office by 10.04 AM.
108. As per the evidence on 29.1.2011, PW.20 came to the office at 10.04 AM whereas Ex.P.58(o-o) shows that on that day from View Room-2/View-2 at 08:26:39 AM system was entered and entry has been made by using his ID No.69515. When this entry was made he was not present in View Room-2/ View2 of HAL. Further, on 15.2.2011 as per Ex.P.58(jj), on 19.2.2011 as per Ex.P.58(pp), on 26.2.2011 as per Ex.P.58(qq) the entries have been made by using his ID. The learned counsel relied upon Ex.D28 and D29 to show that in his ID only the other entries have been made on 19.2.2011 and 26.2.2011, therefore, it cannot be said that it is accused No.2 who has used the ID of PW.20. It is pertinent to note that on 19.2.2011 PW.20 was on leave but on that his ID has been used. When the ID of PW.20 has been misused in his absence, the entry Ex.D28 and D29 made in his absence by other staff cannot be said as 72 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J helpful to the accused to disprove the allegation made against accused No.2. As per the evidence, it is pertinent to note that immediate next to Ex.P.58(o-o), immediate prior and next of Ex.P.58(p-p) and immediate next to Ex.P.58(q-q), the loggin was made to ID No. 66513 belonging to accused No.2 in the same system at View Room-2/View-2. Based on the evidence and electronic record, an inference can be drawn that Ex.P.58(o-
o), Ex.P.58(p-p), Ex.P.58(q-q), these entries have been made by the accused No.2 by using the ID No. 69515 of PW.20.
109. Further, it is proved that as per Ex.P.58 (r-r), the work orders and RRs were cleared from ID No. 66513 of accused No.2 and inspection finished by using the ID of PW.20.
110. Eleventhly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.22 Dinakar Toppo, Manager (Outsourcing), Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that from 2007 Jan to 2011 he was working as Engineer in Program Engineering Dept., HAL, Bengaluru. The goods were being brought from Outsourcing Dept., to his department in boxes. The said goods would accompany route books wherein in the processing details to be done by them will be mentioned. As per Ex.P. 51 route cards of part 201 Y 966 H 1075 201 LH had not come along with the goods. No entries 73 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J have been made in Ex.P.51 with regard to the process of finishing operation. The letter in Ex.P.58 at Ex.P.58(s-s) was written by him to the DGM, Program Engineering Department wherein he has mentioned that no job tickets were taken and no tagging has been made, there is no booking done on process of their employees. Therefore, bracket parts not received to process shop. Whenever, the route cards are received from Outsourcing Dept., all the details of process to be done by them will be mentioned and accordingly they carry on the operation of process. Earlier to that the Quality Dept., view room 2 will release for finishing operation. The said released for finishing operation by quality dept., view room 2 has not been done and not shown in route card. Further such operations are carried out by process quality dept., and it will be shown in the route card. This witness has been cross-examined and nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. The learned counsel for accused tried to elicit that there was inward entry register in further processing department but after introducing online system, the old system was stopped. In his cross- examination he has deposed that since they have not received the part, therefore the same was not entered in the system or in the inward register. This evidence of PW.22 is unchallenged in 74 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J any manner. The evidence of PW.22 is proving the contents of Ex.P.58 (s-s) written and signed by him addressed to Deputy Manager Program. Therefore, the evidence of PW.22 is an acceptable evidence and supporting the allegations of prosecution.
111. It is very much relevant to consider the contents of Ex.P.58 (s-s) and the enclosure to the said document. Ex.P.58(s-s) is the information pertaining to job card printing and loading, tagging and booking details of the 8 work orders involved in this case which reads as follows: -
WORK PART NO./ PART JOB CARD TAGGING BOOKING ORDER DESCRIPTION PRINT & LOADING 7505217553 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217554 201Y 966H 1075 202 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217555 201Y 966H 1075 202 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217556 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217557 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217558 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217559 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 7505217560 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH NIL NIL NIL (BRACKET) 75 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J The screen shots pertaining to above mentioned 8 work order are enclosed as Annexure-1 and on perusal of the same, it discloses no entry is forthcoming regarding receipt of material in the process shop. When all the work order details enquiry shows no entry this fact proves that the brackets have not reached the process shop as contended by the prosecution.
112. Twelfthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.24 Sri. Nagendra Kumar Shettigar who was working as Driver in M/s. Dynatech. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that he used to supply the materials handed over by M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices to HAL in the vehicle provided by M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices.
113. Further, he deposed that Ex.P.59(a), Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(a), Ex.P.60(b), Ex.P.61(a), Ex.P.61(b), Ex.P.62(a) and Ex.P.62(b) are the eight Delivery Challans in Ex.P.59 to Ex.P.62 are signed by him on the authorization given to him by accused No.3.
114. Then he has deposed that he had taken the materials mentioned in the DCs in the Maruthi Van of M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices and materials used to wrapped in a box and details of the materials as shown in the DCs would be 76 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J reflected on the box by affixing a slip containing the details of materials and he used to hand over the same boxes in HAL.
115. Further he has deposed that he has put his signature in Ex.P.74, Ex.P.78 for having delivered the materials. Then he has deposed that in Ex.P.60(a), Ex.P.60(b), Ex.P.61(b), Ex.P.62(b), Ex.P.65(b), Ex.P.50(b), Ex.P.85(1) and Ex.P.85(2) there is no signature in the space provided for the received materials for having received the materials. Further, he has deposed that in Ex.P.85(4), the signature of the person who received the material shown in Ex.P.60(a) does not tally with the signature made at the bottom of the space provided "Received Materials and signature". Then he has deposed that he has put his signature in Ex.P.87 as per Ex.P.87(a) to 87(c) and signed on Ex.P.88 to Ex.P.107 as per Ex.P.88(a) to Ex.P.107(a). Then he has deposed that in Ex.P.88, Ex.P.90, Ex.P.101, there are no signatures for having received the materials by any of the authority of HAL. There is no cross-examination to this witness, therefore, the evidence of PW.24 is unchallenged evidence deposed before the court. Therefore, his evidence is proving that there is no authority to him in writing to sign on the delivery challan on behalf of M/s. Dynatech and only on the direction of accused No.3, he has signed on those documents. When the 77 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J contract was between the HAL and M/s. Dynatech, the delivery challans ought to have been signed by authorized signatory of M/s. Dynatech and no such signature is forthcoming on the delivery challans. Further, it is pertinent to note that no signature of authority in HAL is forthcoming on the delivery challans to show that they have received the brackets as mentioned in the delivery challans. The former employee of M/s. Dynatech has deposed about his signature on delivery challans without any authorization to him and no signature of HAL authority on those documents for having received the articles. Therefore, the evidence of PW.24 is proving that there is no signature of authorized person of HAL on the delivery challans to show that the brackets were received as described in the delivery challans.
116. Thirteenthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of pw.26 Sri. R. Prashanth, who was Job Contract Labour in HAL from 2004 to 2012. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that, during his tenure, his duty was to receive the goods and to offer them for inspection. The goods which were supplied by the Vendors to HAL were being received by the Helicopter Dept, HAL and then to their Dept. 78 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
117. He has further deposed that Accused No.1 was his immediate superior and Accused No.2 was their Inspector in Quality Control Dept., and he knew M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices who was one of their vendors. The goods after reaching their dept., will be entered in the Material Incoming Register and the said goods will also be entered in the ALH Incoming Register.
118. Then he has deposed that in Ex.P.59, Ex.P.59(a), Ex.P.63 the entries at Ex.P.63(a), Ex.P.63(b), Ex.P.63(c), Ex.P.63(d) to Ex.P.63(g) and in Ex.P.64, Ex.P.63(h) to Ex.P.63(l) are in his own handwriting. Further, he has deposed that as per the document he has not actually received the goods, received the DC only and as per the instructions of accused No.1 who was his superior has put his signature as he told that goods are received. Further, he has deposed that as per Ex.P.61(a) and Ex.P.61(ab) he has simply put his signature without receiving the goods and he has signed as per the instructions of accused No.1. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for accused and nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disprove his evidence. The evidence deposed by him that he has simply put his signatures and made entry in his handwriting as per the instructions of accused No.1 who was his 79 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J superior is proving the entry made by him on the instructions of accused No.1 in the concerned registers.
119. Fourteenthly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.27 Sri. M. Venkatesh, Inspector-A, manufacturing inspection (View Room-1), Quality Department, helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to his evidence, he has deposed that his duty in HAL is after receipt of goods to inspect in detail and then to process and accused No.2 was his Supervisor and in HAL, Computer System came to be introduced during 2005-2006 and his ID Number is 643269111-53 and ID number of accused no.2 is 66513. M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices supplies various machine components to HAL. He has not carried out the Inspection of articles mentioned in Ex.P.51. Ex.P.51 shows the receipt of articles in Quality Dept., but does not show any inspection or further operation.
120. Then he has deposed that in Ex.P.58, where in the entries related to work order No.7505217554 and 7505217558 and those entries show that through his ID the Inspection has been carried out, but actually, he has not done the inspection of those articles because entry in respect of work order No.7509003568 has been done by him and the entries for above work order defer in noting. In respect of Four Route Books at 80 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P.108 to Ex.P.111 he has carried out inspection in respect of Ex.P.108 and Accused no.2 has done the inspection in respect of Ex.P.109 and Ex.P.111 and his signatures on Ex.P.108 is at Ex.P.108(a) and signature of accused no.2 on Ex.P.109 and Ex.P.111 are at Ex.P.109(a) and Ex.P.111(a).
121. Further, he has deposed that Ex.P.110 has been inspected by his colleague Inspector C. Santhosh and his signature at Ex.P.110(a) and in respect of Ex.P110, his ID has been shown for making entry and according to him the said entry might have been done by accused No.2 for the reason that since work order pertaining to Ex.P.110 shows the closure time as 10.44.12 secs A.M., as per Ex.P.58 but the RR in respect of the same is cleared on the same day at 10.55 A.M., by Accused No.2. In Ex.P.58, on page No.108 two last entries show that accused No.2 has operated the same computer for making RR entry at Ex.P.58 (tt).
122. Further, he has deposed that in respect of Ex.P.109, his ID has been misused by accused No.2 for making entry, because, before and after work entry No.7505217557, accused No.2 has made entry, therefore, on that basis he say that by misusing his ID accused No.2 has made entry. Further, he has deposed that entry pertaining to work order No.7510202852 at 81 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P.111, the articles have been inspected by accused No.2 but in the system, it is shown that through his ID, it is cleared. Accused no.2 has tampered his ID. As seen from his cross- examination, his evidence is not shaken in any manner to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, his evidence is consistent, cogent and corroborated from the documents produced before the court by the prosecution. Therefore, there are no reasons to disbelieve his evidence for the matter stated by him. The fact that he is working as Inspector-A in HAL, Helicopter Division since 2002 and his duty is to inspect the goods in detail and then to process is not disputed. His evidence proves that he has not done any inspection or further operation of articles mentioned in Ex.P.51. Further, it is proved that, in respect of two work orders mentioned in Ex.P.58, he has not done the inspection but by using his ID, the inspection has been cleared. He has specifically deposed that before and after user of his ID, the entries have been made by accused No.2. Further, he has deposed that it is accused No.2 who by using his ID has done the entries. Further, he has deposed about the entries in the handwriting of accused No.2 and his signature. He has also deposed that accused No.2 has misused his ID for doing the entries in the system. Therefore, the evidence of PW.27 is supporting the case of the 82 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J prosecution and proving that though he has not done inspection of articles, by using his ID, the entries have been made.
123. Now coming to the defence of accused, they have relied upon the oral and documentary evidence. Firstly under the defence evidence the accused have relied upon the oral evidence of DW-1 Sri. Suresh P.V., Quality Inspector, View-2, Helicopter Division, Outsourcing, HAL, Bengaluru. He has deposed that since 14 years he is serving as Quality Inspector, View-2 Helicopter Division, Outsourcing Inspection, HAL, Bengaluru. Further, he has deposed that Ex.D32(a) is the Route Card and Ex.D32(b) is the Route Book and his signature is at Ex.D32(b) and Ex.D32(c) and Ex.D32(a) and Ex.D32(b) are concerning to one purchase order and part No., and Ex.D32(b) was offered to him, therefore he has put his signature and Ex.D32(a) was not offered to him. Therefore, he has not signed on it and there is no signature of anybody on Ex.D32(a) and articles mentioned in Ex.D32(b) have been received and inspected by him and further processed. Further, he has deposed that Ex.D32(d) and Ex.D32(e) which are the copies of route card and route book. The evidence deposed by DW-1 is not disputed by the prosecution in any manner. The documents and the evidence deposed by DW-1 are concerning to some 83 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J other work order and parts which are not related to the transactions of the present case.
124. Secondly, the defence has relied upon the evidence of DW-2 Ramesh Rathod, Chief Manager, RWR & DC Division, HAL, Bengaluru who has deposed that he served as Senior Manager, RWR & DC Division, Out Sourcing Dept, HAL, Bengaluru from 2011 July to July 2015. Ex.D.34 is the copy of the sworn affidavit filed by him for his examination-in-chief before Sole Arbitrator, in the matter of disputes and differences in AC 21/2015. There is no dispute about the evidence deposed by him and his affidavit Ex.D34 filed before the Sole Arbitrator.
125. Thirdly, the defence has relied upon the evidence of DW-3 Lokesh H, Quality Inspector, Scale 5, CMM Inspection, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru who has deposed that since 11 years, he is serving as Quality Inspector, Scale 5, CMM Inspection, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Ex.D.32 is the document for receiving the article and at Ex.D.32(g), it is mentioned that Dimension Report not traceable. The evidence deposed by DW-3 and the contents of Ex.D32 is not disputed in any manner. The said entry is pertaining to some other part and not in respect of the present case articles.
84 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
126. Fourthly, the defence has relied upon the evidence of DW-4 Ashok Kumar, Manager, Quality, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru who has deposed that he is serving as Manager, Quality Control, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru since one year. Earlier he was Dy. Manager (Quality Control) from 2011 to 2014. Ex.D.32(g) is the Statement of work orders pertaining to Purchase Orders generated from IFS System of HAL, Bengaluru. In Ex.D.32(g), it is mentioned that dimension reports not traceable. Dimension Report and First Inspection Report are one and the same. In Ex.D.32(g), the receipt of goods and payment made is also mentioned. It is pertinent to note the admission made by DW-4 in his cross-examination. He has admitted that he has not generated ExD32(g) from the IFS system and he has no personal knowledge about the goods received and payment made to the concerned. Further, he has admitted that by referring to the document is deposing the evidence. As per the evidence of DW-4, he is not an author of Ex.D32(g) nor he has received the goods and made the payment. He is stranger to the transactions mentioned in Ex.D32(g). They have not taken place during his tenure or attended by him. When he has deposed his evidence by looking to the document, it is in the form of hearsay evidence. When DW-4 has not done anything in respect of 85 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.D32(g), it cannot be said that his evidence is proving the contents of the said document.
127. By relying upon the evidence of DW.4 and the contents of the Ex.D32(g), the accused are trying to project that though there is no mentioning of dimension report or first inspection report in Ex.D32(g), even then the payment has been made admitting that the goods are received and in the same way in the present case also the brackets are received, inspected and payment has been made and there is no irregularity or illegality forthcoming to make allegations against accused No.1 to 4. This defence of accused cannot be accepted and cannot be compared to the other lacunas in respect of other articles mentioned in Ex.D33(g). In the present case, the witnesses have specifically deposed that the brackets are not received, not inspected by them and entries have been made in the system by misusing ID and no further processing of brackets to reach the process shop and finally to the stores and such act cannot be said as not illegal. Hence, the evidence of DW.4 and the contents of Ex.D32(g) cannot be said as helpful to the accused to disprove the allegations made against them. This court is not considering all the loopholes and irregularities that have been taken place in the procurement of articles in HAL but concerned 86 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J with the allegations of the present case made against the accused.
128. Fifthly, the defence has relied upon the evidence of DW-5 K.T. Joseph, General Manager, Ankit Lissi Aerospace, Bengaluru who has deposed that he served as Dy. General Manager, Outsourcing Dept., Helicopter Division, HAL from 1st June 2010 to 29th December 2015. He joined the service in HAL as Management Trainee on 26th July 1988 and served their till he leaving the said company by serving in different capacities. The letter dt:30.06.2014 written by him to M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices is at Ex.D.40.
129. The evidence deposed by DW5 is not challenged by the prosecution in any manner. It is pertinent to note that as a Deputy General Manager (OS) Helicopter Division, HAL, he has written Ex.D40. The contents of Ex.D40 are proved from the evidence of defence only i.e., DW-5. On careful perusal of the contents of Ex.D40, it is clearly mentioned about the four purchase orders placed by HAL to M/s. Dynatech for supply of 56 brackets. There is no dispute about placing of four orders by HAL. In Ex.D40, it is mentioned about four purchase orders for supply of brackets to M/s. Dynatech which is as follows: -
87 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J PO No. PO Date Part No. Description Qty.
5551997 23.08.05 201 Y 966H 1070 201 LH-1 BRACKETS 7 201 Y 966H 1070 202 RH-1 7 5551998 23.08.05 201 Y 966H 1075 201 LH-1 BRACKETS 7 201 Y 966H 1075 202 RH-1 7 5551999 27.09.05 201 Y 966H 1070 201 LH-1 BRACKETS 7 201 Y 966H 1070 202 RH-1 7 5552000 14.10.05 201 Y 966H 1075 201 LH-1 BRACKETS 7 201 Y 966H 1075 202 RH-1 7
130. Further, it is pertinent to note the further contents of Ex.D40 relied upon by the defence in support of its defence which reads as follows: -
"As against the above POs, you have supplied some other material on the following dates:
Supplied on Invoice No. Against PO No. For amount Rs.
03.02.2011 538 & 451 5551997 536849.88 19.01.2011 514 & 536 5551998 498503.46 08.02.2011 539 & 540 5551999 498503.46 28.01.2011 515 & 537 5552000 536849.88 88 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
131. Further, in the subsequent paras of Ex.D40, it is mentioned that the materials supplied by M/s. Dynatech were not in conformity of requirement of HAL and the materials so supplied were not in terms of the POs. It is also mentioned that as against the above wrong supply of materials, a false bill has been claimed from HAL to cause wrongful loss to it.
132. Though in Ex.D40, it is specifically mentioned that some other material was supplied as against the brackets ordered under four purchase orders, the defence is relying upon this document and admitting the contents of the said document, then what more proof is required to believe that the brackets mentioned in the four purchase orders were not supplied and some other materials were supplied only to show the supply of brackets and to knock off the bill amount from the HAL by manipulating the records. Therefore, the evidence of DW-5 and the contents of Ex.D40 relied upon by the defence is rather more helpful to the prosecution instead of defence raised by the accused in this case.
133. Sixthly, the defence has relied upon the evidence of DW-6 K.V. Hemanth, who is accused No.3 as well as Director of M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices, Peenya, Bengaluru who has deposed that since three years, he is serving as Director in M/s.
89 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Dynatech Tools and Devices. It is a private limited company consisting of seven Directors including himself and their company manufactures machine components from 1991 and their company has supplied 56 brackets to HAL as per their order and specification. As per the procedure in HAL, the parts were supplied, inspected and moved to further processing Dept. To demonstrate this, they had filed an application before the court to summon the incoming register in the further processing Dept., and the court passed an order and summons was issued and the HAL has not produced the concerned register and produced some other documents relating to Sub Contract Department. Their company is supplying components mainly to four departments in HAL. Further, he has deposed that Ex.D.34 is the claim proceedings filed before MSME and which was referred to arbitrator for adjudication pertaining to claim settlement against HAL-MRO division, Ex.D.35 is the copy of the award in A.S. No.26/2016 and Ex.D.36 is the copy of the claim proceedings filed before MSME and which was referred to arbitrator for adjudication pertaining to claim settlement against HAL-RWRDC division and Ex.D.37 is the copy of the order sheet, appeal, memorandum and copy of the award in A.S. No.28/2016 and Ex.D.38 is the copy of the claim proceedings filed before MSME 90 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J and which was referred to arbitrator for adjudication pertaining to claim settlement against HAL-Helicopter division containing two spiral bindings and Ex.D.39 is the copy of the order sheet, appeal, memorandum and copy of the award in A.S. No. 27/2016. At the time of alleged incidents, he was an employee of M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices as Marketing Manager.
134. As seen from the entire evidence deposed by this witness and the contents of Ex.D34 to 41, they are pertaining to the claim proceedings made by M/s. Dynatech against other departments of HAL. On perusal of Ex.D34, it is an affidavit filed by DW-2 on behalf of HAL, RWR & DC Division before the Sole Arbitrator wherein he has fully supported and justified the contention of HAL regarding alleged wrongful loss of Rs.22,67,189/- to HAL by M/s. Dynatech. In no way, this affidavit is helpful to the defence to disprove the allegations of the prosecution.
135. Regarding Ex.D35 to D39 and Ex.D41 are the arbitration proceedings pertaining some other transactions of HAL and M/s. Dynatech which are no way relevant for the present case. It is the contention of accused that since M/s. Dynatech has made claim against the HAL in respect of other transactions of other department, as a revenge for those 91 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J proceedings, the present case has been filed against M/s. Dynatech. Such contention raised by the accused cannot be acceptable because M/s. Dynatech was supplying articles to four departments of HAL. If there is any dispute in respect of supply of article to other department, the remedy is to recover the said amount by due process of law and accordingly the same has been availed by M/s. Dynatech before the proper authority. Simply because the arbitration proceedings have been initiated against HAL by M/s. Dynatech, it cannot be presumed that for those claims to take revenge the present complaint has been filed by HAL before the CBI. Absolutely, no nexus is forthcoming between those proceedings and the present allegations. Therefore, the defence evidence relied upon by the accused is a futile exercise without yielding any fruit, out of the bulk defence evidence. Therefore, the defence evidence is not helpful to the accused in any manner in the present case.
136. It is further defence of accused that M/s. Dynatech did supply the brackets vide Ex.P.59(a), Ex.P.59(b), Ex.P.60(a), Ex.P.60(b), Ex.P.61(a), Ex.P.61(b), Ex.P.62(a) and Ex.P.62(b) and complainant asserts the same has not been received just because entries are not found in the inward register maintained by the outsourcing department and in some of the delivery 92 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J challans, the receiving person signature is missing and that the JCL has stated that during the course of Departmental Enquiry that he has not seen the brackets. It is further contended that the admission made by PW.5 regarding DC No.1099, 1047 and 1100 mentioned in Ex.P.58 are signed by JCL and it means that the parts are received, but those DCs do not pertain to this case.
137. Regarding this defence of accused, it is pertinent to note the contents of para-21 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"21. Outsourcing department was asked to request M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices to forward its copy of quality documents of the Brackets supplied in PO's 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 & 5552000 & also clarify reasons for supplying the Brackets without pre dispatch inspection, copy of clearance given by the Division for commencing bulk machining of the Brackets, details of person to whom the Brackets were handed over by the firm. Also, M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices was asked to clarify as to how the quantity of Brackets supplied by it in PO's 5551998 & 5551999 is higher than the raw material loaded by the Division. However, no satisfactory reply or documents were received from the firm."
138. In this regard, PW.26 who has signed on Ex.P.59(a) DC No.1099 and Ex.P.61(a) DC No.1100 has deposed that on the instructions of accused No.1, he has put his signature on those DCs, but actually he has not received the articles and not inspected the articles by him. Regarding DC Nos.1126, 1070, 1071, 1125 and 1048 they do not bear the signature of receiving 93 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J official of Outsourcing Department of HAL. When PW.26 has specifically deposed that he has not received the articles and simply put his signature on the instructions of accused No.1, how the admission made by PW.5 is helpful to the accused to prove that the articles have been delivered to the HAL. PW.5 is not the person who is authorized to receive the articles or who received the article mentioned in the delivery challans. Only on the signature, he has stated that the articles might have been received. When there is a direct evidence of PW.26 who is the authorized person to receive the articles during relevant time, the admission made by PW.5 based on the signature cannot be said as proving the defence of accused and delivery of articles to HAL. Further, it is pertinent to note the contents of Ex.P.58(h) wherein the accused No.3 on behalf of M/s. Dynatech has replied to HAL, Outsourcing Department that they will not be in a position to recall the person to whom the parts were handed over more than a year back. Further, it is pertinent to note the contents of Ex.P.58(i), Ex.P.58(j), Ex.P.58(k) and Ex.P.58(l) which shows that M/s. Dynatech themselves are not in a position to give the proper information. Therefore, the defence of accused regarding admission of PW.5 cannot be accepted.
94 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
139. Further, it is the defence of accused that Ex.P.60(a) DC No.1047, Ex.P.61(a) DC No.1100, Ex.P.59(a) DC No.1099 contains the signature of receiving officials and it means that atleast 20 brackets have been supplied by M/s. Dynatech to HAL. It is further relied upon the admission of PW.20, PW.26 and contents of Ex.D40 in support of its defence.
140. There is ample evidence of prosecution to prove that the 54 brackets mentioned in the delivery challans were not supplied to the HAL and some other articles were brought in the packed boxes. When there is no proper record about receipt of brackets, further processing, it cannot be said that atleast 20 brackets have been supplied by M/s. Dynatech. Further, the contents of Ex.D40 intimating that the brackets are not supplied and some other articles are supplied cannot be inferred as supply of brackets by M/s. Dynatech to HAL. Therefore, this defence of accused is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution forthcoming before court, hence cannot be acceptable one.
141. Another main defense of all the accused is that the brackets in question have been supplied, inspected and moved to "Further Processing Department" and entries are available in the Inward register maintained by the Further Processing 95 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Department. From there, the brackets have been tagged and moved to Stores Department. There cannot be any iota of doubt about the maintenance of the inward register by the Further Processing department which is forthcoming from the depositions of the prosecution witness and that of unchallenged deposition of DW6 who is none other than Accused No.3.
142. In this regard, the defence counsel has relied upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.22 and DW.6. As seen from the evidence of the witnesses, it is forthcoming that there is a register maintained at the further processing department but the same is not produced before court by the HAL inspite of issue of process on the application of accused. When there is evidence of the prosecution that DCs, RRs and inspection entry have been manipulated, the question of articles reaching the further processing department does not arise. There is evidence to prove that the articles were not received and inspected by PW.26 and on the contrary, he has deposed that he has simply put his signature on the DCs as per the instructions of accused No.1. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the brackets were received and reached the further processing department so as to make entry in the register and non- production of the said register is disproving the case of the 96 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J prosecution. Only non-production of incoming register of further processing department cannot be said as fatal to the case of the prosecution and proving the supply of brackets by M/s. Dynatech. Hence, this defence of accused cannot be accepted when there is ample evidence of prosecution to prove the non- supply of brackets and supply of some other articles through the Security Gate by mentioning the description of brackets in the Delivery Challans.
143. It is another defence of accused that the prosecution has not seized and produced the some other materials alleged to have been supplied by M/s. Dynatech. Admittedly, those materials are not seized and brought before the court. It has come in the evidence that brackets are not small article and they are sizable article having weight.
144. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the contents of para-7 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"7. Also drawings of the parts were forwarded by Outsourcing department. From the drawings it was noticed that the parts were reasonably big components & hence it was found very odd that all 54 of these parts supplied by the vendor were untraceable. The approximate dimensions of these Brackets are as under:
Part No. Approximate Approximate
Dimensions Weight
201Y 966H 1070 201 LH 175x187x210mm 1.70 Kgs
97 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
201Y 966H 1070 202 RH 175x187x210mm 1.70 Kgs 201Y 966H 1075 201 LH 158x187x198mm 1.63 Kgs 201Y 966H 1075 202 RH 158x187x198mm 1.63 Kgs
145. Regarding the brackets in question, it is relevant to note the contents of para-8 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"8. Considering that the parts supplied by the vendor were not required for production & were supplied after almost 4 years of loading the raw material, no records of pre dispatch inspection of the parts is available, it was decided to informally interact with the officials of quality control, outsourcing & Process Shop Progress to gather more information regarding the matter. During the interaction all the personnel informed that they hadn't seen these parts. The inspectors, who as per IFS had released these parts for finishing operations, denied having inspected or seeing these parts and alleged that their ID's have been misused. Process Shop Progress employees stated that these parts (Brackets) weren't received by them for finishing operations."
146. Therefore, looking to the above portion of inspection report, the seizure of some other materials not relevant for adjudication of the present allegations. Therefore, the defence regarding this aspect is not tenable.
147. It is another defence of accused that not only in the present case, in other cases also mentioned in Ex.D11 to D19, there is delay in supply of articles and no action has been taken regarding those delays. Admittedly, delay is not a criteria to 98 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J hold the vendor liable for prosecution. In the present case, the first off pilot part was not approved. It has come in the evidence that it was informed to accused No.3 for not undertaking bulk machining of brackets. The raw materials were supplied on 10.3.2007 to the vendor by HAL. Ex.P.58(b) reveals that the production query was raised on 23.7.2007. When the production query was raised on 23.7.2007, how M/s. Dynatech can wait for considerable time and then produce the brackets and supply the same to HAL. For delayed supply in the normal transaction, there is a provision for liquidated damages. In the present case, based on the delivery challans, RRs signed by accused No.2 and payment advices signed by accused No.1, the finance department believing that the brackets have been supplied calculated the amount by deducting TDS and liquidated damages. If there was only delay by supplying the brackets, the vendor would have been liable for payment of liquidated damages. In the case on hand, the situation is entirely different because inspite of non-approval of first off pilot part, without supplying the brackets, by showing supply after 4 years by manipulating the records, the bill has been claimed. Therefore, the delay of four years occurred in the present case is also creating serious doubt in the mind of the court about the 99 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J contention of supply of brackets by M/s. Dynatech to HAL. Therefore, this defence of accused is also not tenable and acceptable one.
148. It is another defence of accused that, like all other norms, the norm to inform approval is also not followed rigidly by HAL and approvals are given orally. Further, M/s. Dynatech did indeed inform HAL that brackets were ready for inspection as per Ex.D31. On careful perusal of Ex.D31, it is an electronic record and marked through the evidence of Investigating Officer. The contents of this document are not proved in accordance with law. This document was not shown to any officer of Outsourcing Department or to PW.10 during their evidence and it is shown to the Investigating Officer in his evidence. Mere marking of document as exhibit does not dispense with proof of the contents. Further, in respect of electronic record, the procedure prescribed u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act has to be followed and the same is not followed in this case by the defence. Therefore, this document which is not proved cannot be said as helpful to the defence.
149. It is another defence of accused that in respect of other vendor's transactions also there are no entries in the 100 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J incoming register though the security inward register contains the receipt of articles.
150. In this regard, it is relevant to note the contents of para-24 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"24. As part of investigation, the entries made by Security Department on DC's 1047 dated 19/01/2011, 1048 dated 19/01/2011, 1070n dated 27/01/2011, 1071 dated 27/01/2011, 1099 dated 03/02/2011, 1100 dated 03/02/2011, 1125 dated 07/02/2011 & 1126 dated 07/02/2011 vide which the Brackets in PO's 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 & 5552000 were supposedly brought inside the factory by the vendor were got verified. After checking, Security department confirmed that the entries made on the above DC's were genuine and clarified that only quantity mentioned in Delivery Challan is counted at gate but technical specifications aren't checked i.e. identification of the part isn't done implying that some items were brought by M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices against these DC's."
151. As per the evidence only the number of items will be checked and not the nature of articles contained in the boxes. The duty of the security personnel is only to check the number of articles brought by the vendor and he is not a qualified or authenticated person to check the nature of the articles and their description mentioned in the DCs. When the boxes were brought inside the security along with the DCs and obtaining security seal cannot be inferred as brining of brackets in the boxes for supply to HAL. Looking to the nature, weight and 101 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J number of brackets, all the articles ought to have been brought on the same day if they were really manufactured and supplied to HAL. Such article not more than 100 Kg., have been shown as brought on different dates for supply. Therefore, the security seal on the DC's cannot be a conclusive proof for supply of brackets by M/s. Dynatech to HAL. Therefore, this defence of accused cannot be accepted to disprove the ample evidence of prosecution placed before the court.
152. It is another defence of accused that raw material was supplied by M/s. HAL during March 2007 when the route card system was prevailing and issue of materials was mentioned in the route card and when the brackets were supplied during January and February 2011, the system of route book was already introduced. Therefore, the route books reveal the receipt of brackets, inspection and further processing and non-production of the route books by the HAL is sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. As seen from the evidence, after generating route cards, they will be tagged to parts for inspection, further process, etc. It has already come in the evidence of PW.10 that route cards were lying in the outsourcing department only when he conducted internal investigation.
102 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
153. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the contents of para-22 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"22. During the course of investigation, the Route Cards of Brackets ordered in PO's 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 & 5552000 were received from outsourcing department. It was noticed that the route cards aren't signed & there are no entries of inspection supposedly carried out of the parts. As per procedure, parts are offered for inspection by Outsourcing department with route card & after inspection it is signed by inspector & route card moves with the parts till tagging of the parts after completion of finishing operations. Receipt of route Cards from Outsourcing department without any entries of inspection clearly establish that the Brackets weren't offered for inspection by Outsourcing department."
154. When the brackets should move with route card till it reaches stores, the route cards produced before the court clearly establishes that they have not accompanied the brackets alleged to have been supplied and not reached the final destination as per the procedure. When the route cards were still lying in the outsourcing department, this fact goes to show that without sending them along with the alleged supply of brackets retained in the Outsourcing Department, that itself shows that some foul play has been played in the outsourcing department.
155. The another defence of the accused is that, regarding generation of receiving report in many cases has been 103 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J done earlier to the inspection and the same procedure has been followed in the present case also and there is no illegality in the generation of RRs.
156. In this case, the court is not concerned with the procedure that has been followed in other supply by the vendors because that matter is not before the court and the records of those supply are not for the scrutiny of the court. In the absence of satisfactory evidence such defence cannot be accepted. When the procedure is prescribed for generation of RRs., the same has to be followed in respect of receiving of articles. The same has not been followed in the present case by the accused No.2. Therefore, the accused No.2 cannot take the instances of other supply when they are not in dispute and not relevant for the present allegations. Therefore, this defence of accused cannot be accepted. The proper procedure for generation of RRs., not followed in the present case.
157. The next defence of accused is that, non-intimation of de-listing of brackets ordered in the present case and intimation given in other cases in writing. In the present case, the witnesses have deposed that after de-listing the part by methods, the same was intimated to accused No.3 orally. If there was no intimation regarding de-listing of part, M/s.
104 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Dynatech would have started bulk machining and supplied the same within a period of 6 months from the date of supply of material and by retaining the raw material for considerable time and alleged supply of brackets after abnormal delay itself creates doubt about the defence of accused.
158. It is the defence of the accused that, there is no direct evidence to prove the misuse the ID of PW.20 and PW.27 by accused No.2. Therefore, there is no truth in the said allegation made against accused No.2 and relied upon the admission of PW.20 and PW.27. I have gone through the entire evidence of PW.20 and 27 who have deposed that they have not shared their ID with others. Looking to the backward and forward entries forthcoming at a short time and the evidence deposed by the witnesses, it can be very well infer that it is accused No.2 who by misusing the ID of PW.20 and PW.27 in their absence has made entries in the IFS for showing clearance of parts.
159. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the contents of para-14 of Ex.P.58 which reads as follows: -
"14. Analysis of attendance & punch in / punch out details of Shri Ajith Kumar MV (PB No. 69515), Shri Ramesh HM (PB No.66513) & Shri Venkatesh M (PB No. 69111) on dates 29/01/2011, 15/02/2011, 19/02/2011, 24/02/2011 & 26/02/2011 revealed 105 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J that Ajith Kumar MV was on leave on 19/02/2011 when the 'Brackets' in work orders 7505217553 & 7505217557 were supposedly inspected & released by him for finishing operations. Similarly, Ajith Kumar MV was on official duty to Hyderabad on 26/02/2011 when the 'Brackets' in work order 7505217559 were supposedly inspected & released by him for finishing operations. On 29/01/2011, Ajith Kumar MV had reported for duty (punched in) at 10.04 AM, whereas the 'Brackets' in work orders 7505217556 & 7505217555 were supposedly inspected & released by him for finishing operations before 08:30AM, prima facie indicating misuse of IFS ID of Shri Ajith Kumar MV. However, no such discrepancies were noticed in the case of Shri Venkatesh M & Shri HM Ramesh."
160. Therefore, the defence of accused that there is no misuse of ID by accused No.2 for showing the inspection and release cannot be believed. This aspect has been already discussed in detail in the evidence of PW.20 and PW.27.
161. As per the special conditions of purchase order Ex.P.49, P50, P53 and P54 there was an agreement to supply the finished brackets within 6 months from the date of issue of raw material. In the present case, the raw materials were supplied to M/s. Dynatech on 10.3.2007 vide non-returnable material Gate Pass No.6424/09030. As per the evidence, M/s. Dynatech submitted the first off pilot pieces to HAL on 22.6.2007 in respect of purchase order No. 5551998 and second first off pilot article was submitted to HAL on 12.7.2007 in respect of 106 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J purchase order No.555199 and the same have been inspected and made endorsement that "part dimensionally found satisfactory except contour details". This means that the first off pilot articles were not approved by the HAL Inspection Department for taking bulk machining by the vendor. In the event of approval of first off pilot parts, M/s. Dynatech was required to supply the finished brackets within 6 months and the same is not forthcoming in this case.
162. Further, it is strange to note that though there was no supply within 6 months and after 3 ½ years, it is contended that the 54 brackets have been supplied to HAL by M/s. Dynatech. Further, after bulk machining of brackets, it was the duty of M/s. Dynatech to intimate to HAL in writing to undertake inspection of the finished products but the same is not forthcoming in this case. No Inspector from the HAL, neither inspected the brackets in the premises of M/s. Dynatech nor in the premises of HAL to receive the brackets through DCs. Therefore, it is improbable to believe that after lapse of 3 ½ years, M/s. Dynatech without giving intimation to HAL, without pre-dispatch inspection, brought the 54 brackets into the HAL and inspection has been done for those articles. It is also pertinent to note that when the employee of HAL has deposed 107 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J that regarding non-approval of first of pilot piece, the same was informed to accused No.3 and 4 of M/s. Dynatech, how to believe that after lapse of 3½ years they have brought the finished brackets for supply to HAL.
163. As seen from the entire evidence of prosecution placed before the court, there is ample evidence forthcoming to prove that M/s. Dynatech has not supplied 54 brackets as per the specifications mentioned in the four purchase orders to HAL. K) REGARDING PAYMENT MADE BY M/S. HAL TO M/s. DYNATECH IN RESPECT OF FOUR PURCHASE ORDERS:
164. It is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs.17,70,449/- out of Invoice amount of Rs.20,70,708/- has been paid to M/s. Dynatech by HAL by deducting TDS of Rs.41,412/- and liquidated damages of Rs.2,58,839/-. It is further contended that the payment has been made through RTGS into Account No. 2454261005053 of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices maintained with Canara Bank, SME Branch, Bengaluru (IFSC Number: CNRB0002454). It is clearly admitted regarding the payment made by HAL to M/s. Dynatech in respect of four purchase orders Ex.P49, P50, P53 and P54 to the extent of Rs.17,70,449/- after deduction of TDS and liquidated damages.
108 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J In order to prove the payment of amount by HAL to M/s. Dynatech, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.6 Sri. Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Manager, Finance Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to his evidence he has deposed that from July 2012, he has been working as Deputy Manager, Finance Dept in RWR&DC Division, HAL. Earlier to that from July 2010, he was working as Deputy Manager, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. From July 2013, he has been promoted as Manager. In Finance Dept. he was looking after the Costing Section. From 1.1.2008, he came to Bills payable Section in the Finance Dept. of Helicopter Division, HAL. In Bills Payable Section, he was looking after Local Vendors Payment from the user Dept., like Purchase Dept, Outsourcing Dept. etc., the bills used to come to the Bills Payable Section.
165. Further, he has deposed that once the bills comes to the Bills Payable Section, he used to refer the same to the concerned case worker, who used to compare the said bills with purchase order. The said concerned case worker used to verify Invoices, Receiving Reports, forwarding memo of the concerned Dept and then used to put up before him for payment. Thereafter, he used to check up again the said bills as compared 109 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J with purchase orders, invoices, Receiving Reports and pass the bills for payment.
166. Further he has deposed that Ex.P.59, P60, P61 and P62 are the payment files pertaining to Purchase Order Nos. 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 and 5552000 respectively. Ex.P.59(i) and (k) are the Receiving Reports and Ex.P.59(c) and 59(e) are payment advices. Ex.P.60(e) and P60(i) are receiving reports, Ex.P.60(c) and P60(g) are payment advices. Ex.P.61(e) and P61(j) are receiving reports and Ex.P.61(c) and P61(h) are payment advices. Ex.P.62(e) and P62(j) are receiving reports. Ex.P.62(c) and P62(h) are payment advices.
167. He has further deposed that the accused No.1 M.S.Sanjay had issued payment advices and recommended for payment of bill No. 541 and 538 in respect of Ex.P.59, 536 and 514 in respect of Ex.P.60, 540 and 539 in respect of Ex.P.61 and 537, 515 in respect of Ex.P.62 and accused No.1 has signed in all the payment advices. The evidence deposed by PW.6 regarding the payment file and relevant records is not disputed by any of the accused. In the cross-examination, it is admitted by him that the Deputy Manager or any officer above said rank of Outsourcing Department can forward the bills to finance department for payment. He has further admitted that accused 110 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J No.1 Sanjay was Deputy Manager in Outsourcing Department during relevant period and he was designated Officer and in that capacity he has signed the bills for payment. The evidence deposed by PW.6 is supported from the documentary evidence regarding the payment made by HAL to M/s. Dynatech. His evidence is proving the contents of the documents and also supporting the case of the prosecution for proving the payment.
168. Coming to Ex.P.59(i) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.2,29,503/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.59(c) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.541. Ex.P.59(g) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
169. Now coming to Ex.P.59(k) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.2,29,502/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.59(e) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 111 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.538. Ex.P.59(h) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
170. Now coming to payment file Ex.P.60 and in which Ex.P.60(e) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.1,96,716/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.60(c) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.536. Ex.P.60(k) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
171. Now coming to Ex.P.60(i) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.2,29,503/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.60(g) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.514. Ex.P.60(l) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
112 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
172. Now coming to payment file Ex.P.61 and in which Ex.P.61(e) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.2,29,503/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.61(c) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.540. Ex.P.61(g) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
173. Now coming to Ex.P.61(j) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.1,96,716 /- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.61(h) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.539. Ex.P.61(l) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
174. Now coming to payment file Ex.P.62 and in which Ex.P.62(e) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.2,29,503/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill 113 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.62(c) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.537. Ex.P.62(g) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
175. Now coming to Ex.P.62(j) is the receiving report in which it is mentioned that passed for payment of Rs.2,29,503/- and signed by PW.6 as a competent officer for making the payment. Further, the total bill amount, TDS, liquidated damage and amount entitle is also clearly mentioned in this document. Ex.P.62(h) is the payment advice signed by accused No.1 recommending for payment of the amount in respect of invoice No.515. Ex.P.62(l) is the invoice of M/s. Dynatech which is signed by PW.23.
176. Secondly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.16 Ms. S. Chethana who is serving as Senior Finance Assistant, Bills Payable Local Section Finance Department, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. Looking to her evidence, she has deposed that she joined HAL in the year 2008. From 1.5.2008 till September 2014, she was working as Sr. Finance Asst. in Bills Payable Local Section, Finance Dept., Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. As a Sr. Finance Assist., her 114 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J duties were to receive the bills from Outsourcing Dept., processing them, submitting said bills for approval to her Head of Dept., Deputy Manager or Manager, Finance Dept., Bills Payable, Local Section as the case may be in pursuance of delegated financial powers to Manager and Deputy Manager. After bills are passed, she used to make entries in the IFS [Industrial Financial Software], after checking in the IFS, she used to generate Club Account Voucher and Manual Payment Voucher. After generating Vouchers, she used to put up the same before Manager or Deputy Manager for signing the same as the case may be. After obtaining signature of Manager or Deputy Manager, the payments were used to be made through RTGS to the account of the Vendor. She used to prepare RTGS Voucher and send the same to SBI, HAL Main Branch. She further deposed that during the investigation of this case, CBI Officer had shown 4 or 5 documents i.e. Bills and Vouchers prepared by her.
177. Further she has deposed that Ex.P.59 is the payment file sent to her by accused No.1 M.S.Sanjay, the Deputy Manager, Outsourcing Dept., and she was working with Accused no.1 for 2 or 3 years and therefore she is familiar with his signature and she can identify his signature. Ex.P.59(c) is the 115 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Sub Contract Payment Advice signed by Accused No.1. Under Ex.P.59(c), the Sub Contract Payment Advice was prepared for Rs.2,34,870/-. The Sub Contract Payment Advice submitted by Accused no.1 was accompanied with DC, Invoice, RRs.
178. On receipt of Ex.P.59 (c), she checked the Invoice No.541 dt: 19.02.2011 and Delivery Challan issued by M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices, Receiving Reports. She checked the DC in order to confirm whether the Security Check was made by putting seal and signature of concerned Security Staff. She verified whether the signature and seal of the Inspector of HAL were there on RRs. Accused no.2 H.M.Ramesh has signed the said RRs at Ex.P.59(n).
179. Further she has deposed that she has also checked whether the parts are accepted or not by verifying in the RRs. In the RRs in the Column of Quantity, the figure of Quantity is shown. She had calculated and processed and shown the amount to be payable on the over leaf of RRs marked at Ex.P.59(i). In the Gross Amount of Rs.2,68,425/- TDS of Rs.5,368 was deducted, and liquidated damages of RS.33,553 was also deducted for causing delay in supplying the materials and she has put the seal for having prepared the bill on the overleaf of Ex.P.59(i). So also she put the seal on the invoice 116 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J and net amount is also written on the overleaf of Ex.P.59(i), which is payable to the Vendor and said RR, Invoice, DC along with payment advice were put for the signature before the Deputy Manager, Finance Dept. Deputy Manager Ashok Kumar has signed on the overleaf of Ex.P.59(i) at Ex.P.59(j).
180. Further she has deposed that then she checked IFS in order to ascertain the correctness of RRs, then she made entries in IFS and generated Club Account Voucher and Manual Payment Voucher. After preparing the Club Account Voucher and Manual Payment Voucher, she used to put up the same for signature of Sr.Manager of Bills Payable, Local Section, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. After the Senior Manager signs, the Club Account Voucher and Manual Payment Voucher, she prepared RTGS Report. Again the said RTGS Report was put for signature of Sr. Manager of Bills Payable Local Section. After signing the said RTGS Report, it was sent to the Bank for Payment i.e. SBI, HAL, Main Branch.
181. Further she has deposed that the amount shown in the said RTGS Report was sent to M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices. The purchase order of the present RTGS A/c and other connected DC, Invoice and RRs is PO 5551997.
117 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
182. Further she has deposed that on receipt of Ex.P.59(e), Ex.P.60(c), Ex.P.60(g), Ex.P.61(c), Ex.P.61(h), Ex.P.62(c) and Ex.P.62(h), Sub Contract Payment Advices, she checked the connected Invoices, Delivery Challans issued by M/s Dynatech Tools and Devices and Receiving Reports. Further, she checked connected Delivery Challans in order to confirm whether the Security Check was made by putting seal and signature of concerned Security Staff. She verified whether the signature and seal of the Inspector of HAL were there on connected RRs. Accused No.2 has signed the said RRs.
183. Further she has deposed that she also checked whether the parts are accepted or not by verifying in the RRs. In the RRs in the Column of Quantity, the figure of Quantity is shown. She has calculated and processed and shown the amount to be payable on the over leaf of RRs. In the Gross Amount of each payment advice, the TDS and liquidated damages was also deducted for causing delay in supplying the materials and she has put the seal for having prepared the bill on the overleaf of RRs and so also she put the seal on the invoice and net amount is also written on the overleaf of Invoices, which is payable to the Vendor and said RR, Invoice, DC along with payment advice were put for the signature before 118 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the Deputy Manager, Finance Dept. Deputy Manager Ashok Kumar has signed on the said documents.
184. Further she has deposed that she checked IFS in order to ascertain the correctness of RRs, then she made entries in IFS and generated Club Account Vouchers and Manual Payment Vouchers. After preparing the same, she used to put up for signature of Sr. Manager of Bills Payable, Local Section, Helicopter Division, HAL, Bengaluru. After the Senior Manger signs the Club Account Vouchers and Manual Payment Vouchers, she prepared RTGS Reports. Again the said RTGS Reports were put for signature of Sr.Manager of Bills Payable Local Section. After signing the said RTGS Reports, they were sent to the Bank for Payment i.e. SBI, HAL, Main Branch. There is no cross- examination done to this witness, therefore the entire evidence deposed by PW.16 with regard to payment of amount by HAL to M/s. Dynatech after deduction of TDS and liquidated damages is not disputed in any manner. Therefore, the unchallenged evidence of PW.16 is proving the verification of payment advice, respective records and preparing RTGS statement and sending the same to the bank for transfer of the amount from HAL account to M/s. Dynatech account.
119 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
185. Thirdly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.9 Sri. M.G. Sen, Asst. General Manager, SME, Specialised Branch, Canara Bank, Peenya. Looking to his evidence he has deposed that from August 2014 he has been working as Assistant General Manager SME (small and medium enterprises) specialized branch, Canara Bank, Peenya. Further, he has deposed that under his letter Ex.P.70, he has produced the Account Opening Form of M/s. Dynatech and enclosures as per Ex.P.71 and statement of account of M/s. Dynatech maintained with their branch as per Ex.P.72.
186. Further he has deposed that on 18.02.2011 an amount of Rs.3,92,781/- was transferred from the Helicopter Division HAL to M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices through NEFT as per Ex.P.72(b). On 25.05.2011 an amount of Rs.2,29,504/- was transferred from the Helicopter Division HAL to M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices through NEFT as per Ex.P.72(c). On 11.03.2011 an amount of Rs.20,45,854/- and as per Ex.P.72(d) and on the same day another amount of Rs.6,93,438/- was also transferred from the Helicopter Division HAL to M/s. Dynatech Tools and Devices through NEFT as per Ex.P.72(e). The evidence deposed by PW.9 with regard to transfer of amount from the account of HAL to the account of M/s. Dynatech 120 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J through NEFT is unchallenged in any manner. Therefore, the evidence of PW9 is fully supporting the case of the prosecution for transfer of amount from the account of HAL to the account of M/s. Dynatech.
187. Even in the defence evidence and the contents of Ex.D40, it is clearly admitted about receipt of amount from HAL to M/s. Dynatech. In Ex.D40, it is mentioned and admitted that "As against these invoices you have received a sum of Rs.17,70,449/- from HAL i.e., after deduction of LD Rs.2,58,839 & Rs.41,412/- towards TDS." In the trial of the case and in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for all accused, it is clearly admitted about the payment received by M/s. Dynatech from HAL towards the purchase orders for brackets. Therefore, the prosecution has proved sufficiently about the payment of amount of Rs.17,70,449/- to M/s. Dynatech after deduction of TDS and liquidated damages.
L) RESPONSIBILITY OF ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 AS PER INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN HAL:
188. PW.10 after verifying all the records, collecting information and recording the statements of the officials of HAL has arrived to a conclusion in his internal investigation report 121 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P58 regarding the involvement of accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay and his illegal acts forthcoming as per report are as under: -
i) Connived with Shri Hemant of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru & Shri HM Ramesh (PB No. 66513), AE (QA) and helped M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru in cheating HAL Helicopter Division of Rs.22,67,189/- during March 2011 in PO's 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 & 5552000.
ii) Out of above amount Rs.17,70,449/- is the direct payment received by M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru from the Division against RR's HB11-2071, HB11-2301, HA11-2184, HB11-2069, HB11-2302, HB112072, HA11-2185 & HB11-2070 Rs.41,412/- is the TDS amount deducted & deposited by the Division & Rs.4,55,328/- is the cost of raw material (54 aluminum flats) which the firm was to return to the Division.
iii) Processed the RR's HB11-2071, HB11-2301, HA11-2184, HB11-2069, HB11-2302, HB112072, HA11-2185 & HB11-2070 for payment in spite of knowing fully well that the parts (Brackets) mentioned in these RR's weren't actually supplied by M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru.
iv) Initially tried to cover up the truth & mislead the vigilance enquiry by making false statements.
v) Caused wrongful loss of Rs.22,67,189/- to HAL Helicopter Division plus the interest on this amount since March 2011 & wrongful gain of an equivalent amount to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru.
vi) Took benefits from M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru & other vendors like vehicle for personal use, gifts etc.
vii) Took favour from Shri Hemant of M/s.
Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru for getting admission of one of his relative in college.
122 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
189. Likewise, the illegalities found against the accused No.2 H.R. Ramesh as per Ex.P58 are as follows: -
i) Connived with Shri Hemant of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru & Shri MS Sanjay (PB No. 68897), Deputy Manager (Methods) and helped M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru in cheating HAL Helicopter Division of Rs.22,67,189/-
during March 2011 in PO's 5551997, 5551998, 5551999 & 5552000.
ii) Out of above amount Rs.17,70,449/- is the direct payment received by M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru from the Division against RR's HB11-2071, HB11-2301, HA11-2184, HB11-2069, HB11-2302, HB112072, HA11-2185 & HB11-2070 Rs. 41,412/- is the TDS amount deducted & deposited by the Division & Rs.4,55,328/- is the cost of raw material (54 aluminum flats) which the firm was to return to the Division.
iii) Cleared the RR's HB11-2071, HB11-2301, HA11-2184, HB11-2069, HB11-2302, HB112072, HA11-2185 & HB11-2070 for payment in spite of knowing fully well that the parts (Brackets) mentioned in these RR's weren't actually supplied by M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru.
iv) Misused IFS ID's of his colleagues Shri Ajith Kumar MV (PB No. 69515) & Shri Venkatesh M (PB No. 69111) to release the parts (Brackets) in work orders 7505217553, 7505217554, 7505217555, 7505217556, 7505217557, 7505217558 & 7505217559 for finishing operations.
v) Initially tried to cover up the truth & mislead the vigilance enquiry by making false statements.
vi) Caused wrongful loss of Rs.22,67,189/- to HAL Helicopter Division plus the interest on this amount since March 2011 & wrongful gain of an equivalent amount to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru.
vii) Took benefits from M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices, Bengaluru & other vendors like attending 123 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J dinners organised by these vendors, vehicle for personal use etc. M) OFFENCES:
190. Based on the above facts established by the prosecution, I will consider whether they constitute the offences alleged against the accused one after the another.
a) ALLEGATION OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
191. It is alleged by the prosecution that Accused No.1 to 4 entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during the relevant period to cheat the HAL and to gain wrongfully by M/s. Dynatech.
192. To know the offence of criminal conspiracy it is proper to consider the definition of the same as defined under Sec. 120-A of IPC., which reads as follows: -
"120-A, Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done: -
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
124 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
193. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the principles of decision reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5139 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - S 120A - Conspiracy - Agreement to do illegal act - Is essence of criminal conspiracy - Direct evidence of conspiracy is rarely available - It has to be proved on basis of circumstances prior and after occurrence
- Circumstances proved however must clearly show that they were committed in pursuance of agreement between persons conspiring.
194. Further, regarding criminal conspiracy, proof and requirement of the evidence it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2003 SUPREME COURT CASES - 2748, in the case of Ram Narain Poply Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, as follows:
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - S. 120B - Criminal conspiracy - Ingredient of offence - Is an agreement between conspirators to do an illegal act
- No overt act need be done in furtherance of conspiracy - Conspiracies are not hatched in open but are secretly planned - Direct evidence rarely available to prove conspiracy -Circumstantial evidence can be relied on - Conspiracy is continuing offence and subsists till it is executed or frustrated by choice of necessity.
125 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
195. Further, in the decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC page 659, in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others. Vs. Som Nath Thapa and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
A. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120-A - Criminal conspiracy - Essential ingredients of - Knowledge and intention - Knowledge of commission of illegal act or legal act by illegal means necessary - intent may be inferred from knowledge itself when in fact no legitimate use of the goods or service in question exists - Person participating in transportation of materials like RDX must be imputed the intent of its use for illegal purpose - Prosecution not required to establish that the accused knew that the said materials would be used for the purpose of bomb blasts in the country - When offence consists of a chain of actions, it is not necessary that each of the conspirators must know what the other conspirators would do - Bombay Bomb Blast case - TADA Act, 1987, Ss. 3(3) and 2(1)(a)(iii) To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain or actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use.
126 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
196. Further, in the decision reported in (2004) 12 SCC page 336, in the case of Damodar Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows::
F. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Essential Ingredients - Nature of proof required - Held, conspiracy can be proved even by circumstantial evidence - hence lack of direct evidence in respect of a conspiracy has no consequence - overt Act is inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence - The most important ingredient of criminal conspiracy is that there must be an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act - Express agreement need not be proved - Evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is sufficient - conspiracy continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity.
197. Further, in the decision reported in 1970(1) SCC 152 in the case of Lennart Schussler and another vs. The Director of Enforcement and another the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: -
Penal Code, 1860 (No. 45 of 1860) - Section 120-B - Criminal Conspiracy - Ingredients - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (No.7 of 1947) - Sections 4, 5, 9, 21 and 23 - Rule 132-A of Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Violation of - Whether an offence under the Penal Code lies.
Held, (per Sikri, Ray and Jaganmohan Reddy, JJ,) that the first of the offence defined in Section 120-A, Penal Code which is itself punishable as a substantive offence is the very agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means subject 127 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J however to the proviso that where the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence the agreement does not amount to a conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in pursuance of such an agreement. There must be a meeting of minds in the doing of the illegal act or the doing of a legal act by illegal means.
If in the furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy of the plot they cannot be held to be conspirators, though they may be guilty of an offence pertaining to the specific unlawful Act. The offence of conspiracy is complete when two or more conspirators have agreed to do or cause to be done an act which is itself an offence, in which case no overt act need be established. It is also clear that an agreement to do an illegal act which amounts to a conspiracy will continue as long as the members of the conspiracy remain in agreement and as long as they are acting in accord and in furtherance of the object for which they entered into the agreement. What has to be seen is whether the agreement between A-1 and A-2 is a conspiracy to do or continue to do something which is illegal and if it is, it is immaterial whether the agreement to do any of the acts in furtherance of the commission of the offence do not strictly amount to an offence. The entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertained as to what is fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve.
198. Further, in the decision reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596 in the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: -
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 120-A and 120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Nature - What constitutes - Ingredients are actus reus and mens rea - As regards the mental state, two elements are 128 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J necessary viz., intent to agree and intent to promote the unlawful objective of the conspiracy - Scope of conspiracy i.e. who are the parties and what are their objectives - How to determine - Conspiracy is not only a substantive crime but on the basis of it a conspirator can also be held liable for the crime committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy - Conspiracy can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence -
As regards admissibility of evidence strict standards are not necessary inasmuch as any declaration made by a conspirator in furtherance of and during pendency of a conspiracy though hearsay, is admissible against each co-conspirator
199. Lastly, in the decision reported in (2009) 15 SCC 643 in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari vs. CBI the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
A. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 120-A - Criminal conspiracy - Concept - Evidence for proving - Illegal advance credits by bank officials - Held, criminal conspiracy involves meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which may not be illegal but by illegal means - The offence takes place with the meeting of minds even if nothing further is done - It is an offence independent of other offences and is punishable separately - Criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy - Direct evidence is therefore difficult to obtain or access - The offence can be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication.
200. The above definition of criminal conspiracy shows that conspiracy consists of an agreement between two or more persons for doing an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. To establish a charge of conspiracy, mens rea, 129 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J knowledge about the indulgence to do either illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is a necessary. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to establish the alleged criminal conspiracy of Accused No.1 to 4. The prosecution has mainly relied upon circumstantial evidence to support the allegation. Even a presumption can be drawn from the facts of the case. In order to establish criminal conspiracy of Accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution has to prove that they were having mens rea, knowledge about indulgence in doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
201. As per the evidence of the prosecution, the problem in this case starts after the stage of supply of First Off Pilot Pieces. The First Article Final Inspection Reports available in the payment files relating to POs No.5551998 and 5551999 clearly show that the First Off Pilot Pieces were not cleared by the HAL Quality Inspectors. The First Off Pilot Pieces, during inspection, were found to be dimensionally satisfactory except for contour details. PW.18 has deposed that the contour details were not checked as the brackets were no longer required, as informed by the Design Department and therefore First Article Inspection Report in respect of First Off Part supplied against PO No.5551998 was not cleared by him. The First Off Parts supplied 130 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J against PO No.5551999 was inspected by Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh himself and he was also aware that First Off Part was not cleared and therefore the question of bulk machining and supply of brackets does not arise. PW.21 has confirmed that in response to the production query originated by the Methods Department of Helicopter Division he had replied that the items were not required for production of helicopters and that there applicability on Wheel Navy Helicopters would be deleted.
PW.11 had collected a copy of this production query with Design Department and had verbally instructed accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth not to commence bulk machining and return the raw materials. However, raw materials were not returned by the vendor M/s. Dynatech inspite of follow up by PW.11. Subsequently, when his job was rotated in July 2008, he brought this matter to the notice of his successor accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay. Thus, accused No.1 to 3 were fully aware that the First Off Pilot Pieces were not cleared by the Quality Department, were no longer required to be bulk machined. Moreover, there is also nothing in the relevant purchase files to show that the First Off Pilot Parts were accepted, cleared and approval was given to M/s. Dynatech to commence the bulk machining. There is also nothing to show that in any of the relevant PO files to show that 131 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J any extension of time was given to M/s. Dynatech for the supply of ordered brackets.
202. Under the above circumstances, M/s. Dynatech should have returned the remaining quantity of raw materials to HAL-HD as demanded by PW.11, but deliberately failed to do so on the other, contrary to this, after the gap of more than 3½ years from the date of receipt of raw material M/s. Dynatech purportedly supplied totally 54 brackets on 4 different dates i.e., on 19.1.2011, 28.1.2011, 3.2.2011 and 8.2.2011 under 8 different Delivery Challans through its Driver PW.24. No doubt, these have passed through the security at Material Gate of HAL- HD, were only the quantities brought were checked with the quantities mentioned in the Delivery Challans and no verification of the technical specifications took place i.e., identification of the brackets was not done. Therefore, the endorsements given on the Delivery Challans by the Security Staff cannot be treated as proof of supply. The parts so let in, by the Security Staff at the Material Gate, were required to be taken to the Outsourcing Department and handed over to the concerned official properly. However, none of the office copies of Delivery Challans which have been seized from the business premises of the firm during searches, contain the signatures of the official of the sub-
132 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J contract department of HAL - HD acknowledging the receipt of the parts mentioned in the DCs. Similarly, in 5 of the 8 original DCs produced before the court, there is no signature of any of the official of the Sub Contract Department of HAL - HD acknowledging the receipt of brackets mentioned in those DCs. Out of the remaining 3 original DCs., 2 DCs bearing No. 1099 and 1100 both dated 3.2.2011 and DC No. 1047 dated 19.1.2011 contain signatures acknowledging the receipt of brackets mentioned therein. While the first two DCs contain the signature of PW.26 JCL and the 3rd DC contains unknown signature. It is relevant to note that PW.26 though admitted his signature on two DCs but deposed that on the instruction of Accused No.1 who was his superior has put his signature without receiving the articles and without inspecting them. It is also pertinent to note that another DC containing the signature of unknown official itself shows how the DC has been manipulated even by forging the signature on the said DC.
203. Ex.P.63 ALH Incoming Register also do not contain any entries regarding the receipt of these brackets from M/y Dynatech on 19.1.2011, 28.1.2011, 3.2.2011 and 8.2.2011. However, there are entries in this Register on 7.2.2011 in respect of the brackets covered under 2 DCs bearing No. 1099 133 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J and 1100 both dated 3.2.2011 only. According to PW.26, R. Prashanth, who has acknowledged the receipt of materials in DC Nos. 1099 and 1100 both dated 3.2.2011 and also entered in the ALH Incoming Register on 7.2.2011. These two DCs were given to him by Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay on 7.2.2011 saying that the materials so covered under these DCs have already been received and directed him to make necessary entries in the ALH Incoming Register, and it was obliged by him and also acknowledged the same in good faith. Thus, none of the brackets shown in the DCs was handed over to the Outsourcing Department by M/s. Dynatech.
204. Since, the purported supply of brackets were not actually received by the Outsourcing Department, the question of offering them for inspection at View Room-2 does not arise. The absence of any entries in the Route Cards relating to the inspection of brackets show that the brackets were not inspected. PW.26, R. Prashanth, whose duties involved the offering of brackets received, for inspection at View Room-2, has confirmed that he did not offer the brackets in question, for inspection at View Room-2. Despite, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh has shown these brackets as inspected and approved in IFS, either by using his own login ID or by working on the logged in 134 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J ID of PW.27, Inspector, M. Venkatesh or by misusing the login ID of PW.20, Inspector, M.V. Ajit Kumar.
205. Had the said brackets been inspected, then the brackets should have been moved with relative Route Cards, for further process shop. Route Cards do not contain any entries after the issuance of raw materials, which means, the brackets were neither inspected nor moved for further process shop.
206. Despite, Accused No.1 has got the RRs generated through PW.19, Bhanuprakash falsely, that the inspection of brackets at View Room-2 has been completed by the Quality Department. Accused No.1 has signed these RRs knowingly and fraudulently, confirming the inspection of the brackets by the Quality Department and thereby, created a document showing the supply of brackets by M/s. Dynatech and their acceptance by HAL-HD.
207. As such, in the mean time, M/s Dynatech submitted the invoices under the signature of Accused No.4 claiming wrongful payment. Then, Accused No.1 handed over the finalized RRs to PW.19, Shri. Bhanuprakash, along with relative DCs, with instructions to process the invoices received from the vendor for payment. Accordingly, PW.19, Bhanuprakash generated the sub-contract payment advices, after making 135 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J deductions towards the delivery of brackets and they were signed by Accused No.1 and sent to Finance Department for payment and consequently, the payments were made.
208. The defence argument that there are other examples, wherein there are no entries but goods are received and payment was made. This holds no water at all, because goods have been received without entries, is nobody's evidence. Even there were delays in other instances as such, the same aspect cannot be a fatal in this case also, is one more argument by defence side, but the same aspect has not withstood any test of evidence. Simple production of documents cannot take place of proof, unless the concerned authors of such transactions are examined and proved. Moreover, for the previous instances, there was no complaint and no investigation. Hence, truth has never seen the light of the day. Hence, such assumed examples cannot take place of proof.
209. As seen from the evidence of the prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 while working as public servants in HAL, Bengaluru connived with accused No.3 and 4 of M/s. Dynatech, though there was no supply of 54 finished brackets, taking undue advantage of the situation, hatched a plan to do an illegal act of getting bill amount from HAL and to cause wrongful loss to 136 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J the said company. The evidence proves that there was prior meeting of minds of all accused from time to time, mens rea and knowledge to all of them to do an illegal act to get wrongful gain to M/s. Dynatech. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently proving the criminal conspiracy of accused No.1 to 4. Hence, the ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy are well established in the present case.
b) ALLEGATION OF CHEATING & DISHONESTLY INDUCING DELIVERY OF PROPERTY:
210. It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, deceived HAL, dishonestly and fraudulently induced HAL, Bengaluru for release of Rs.17,70,449/-, after deduction of TDS of Rs.41,414/-
and the liquidated damages and caused wrongful loss of Rs.22,67,189/- to HAL and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s. Dynatech.
211. To decide this allegation of the prosecution made against the accused No.1 to 4, u/s 420 of IPC, it is proper to know the definition of cheating defined u/s 415 of IPC, which reads as follows: -
415. Cheating: - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain 137 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J any property, or intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and which act of omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation: - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
212. The essential ingredients for the offence u/s 420 of IPC are:
(i) Accused cheated the HAL.
(ii) Accused did so dishonestly.
(iii) Thereby induced the HAL;
(a) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person;
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything, which was signed, sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security.
213. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Dynatech was the registered approved vendor of HAL. It is further admitted that HAL placed four Purchase Orders under Ex.P.49, P50, P53 and P54 for supply of 56 brackets to M/s. Dynatech and supplied the raw material on 10.3.2007 vide Non-Returnable Material Gate Pass which was received by the representative of M/s. Dynatech. It is further admitted that M/s. Dynatech supplied two First Off Pilot Parts for inspection to HAL. It is also admitted fact that M/s. Dynatech did not supply the finished brackets to the HAL 138 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J within six months as per the Purchase Order Terms. Further, it is admitted that as per Ex.P.59, P60, P61 and P62 the payment files M/s. Dynatech has been paid Rs.17,70,449/- after deduction of TDS of Rs.41,414/- and the liquidated damages.
214. The prosecution has established that the brackets ordered under four Purchase Orders Ex.P.49, P50, P53 and P54 were not required for production of Helicopters and the requirement was deleted and the same was informed to the Outsourcing Department and also to accused No.3 of M/s. Dynatech and there was no clearance of First Off Pilot Piece as per Purchase Order Terms.
215. Further, it is proved that there was no pre-dispatch inspection of brackets, no quality documents are available with Inspection Dept., no finishing operation has been carried out, the brackets have not been tagged or store credited, ID of Inspector of View Room-2 was misused to release some of the work orders for finishing operations in IFS, route cards of the brackets were received from Outsourcing Department, but as per the procedure they have to move with the brackets till tagging of the parts and also the route cards do not bear the signature of Inspectors who have supposedly inspected and cleared the brackets and 8 RRs were generated before inspection of the 139 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J parts and in respect of five work orders, inspection and release of parts for finishing operations and clearance of the corresponding RRs took place simultaneously. It is proved that records were created to show the supply of 54 brackets by M/s. Dynatech to M/s. HAL but in reality, the brackets were not at all supplied to HAL from M/s. Dynatech.
216. The prosecution has proved that without supply of 54 brackets by M/s. Dynatech to HAL, prepared the Delivery Challans and claimed the Invoice Amount from the HAL showing that 54 brackets have been supplied as per the Purchase Orders. Knowing fully well that 54 brackets have not been supplied, accused No.3 and 4 prepared the Delivery Challans and Invoices and claimed the amount from HAL.
217. The prosecution has proved that accused No.1 and 2 knowing fully well that the brackets were not at all required and not supplied by M/s. Dynatech, connived with accused No.3 and 4 at the relevant period and manipulated the records for receiving, inspection and release of brackets for further processing and created RRs. Further, accused No.1 gave instructions to his subordinate to sign on the Delivery Challans though the brackets described therein were not actually received, inspected and further process. Further, accused No.2 140 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J misused the ID of PW.20 and PW.27 for creating entries in the IFS and then shown the articles as released for further processing without there being any receipt, and inspection of the articles in the Outsourcing Department.
218. Further, the accused No.1 has prepared the Payment Advices and recommended for payment of the invoice amount to M/s. Dynatech and as per his payment advice the Finance Department of HAL has made payment after deducting TDS and liquidated damages amounting to Rs.17,70,449/- to M/s. Dynatech.
219. The prosecution has proved that accused No.1 to 4, by their act of criminal conspiracy connived, with each other with dishonest intention to cheat the HAL and induced the HAL to make wrongful payment of Rs.17,70,449/- to M/s. Dynatech (after deduction of TDS of Rs.41,412/- and cost of material of Rs.4,55,328/-). As a result, HAL suffered wrongful loss of Rs.22,67,189/- and M/s. Dynatech gained wrongfully that amount by the deceitful act of accused No.1 to 4. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence u/s 420 of IPC., has been established in the present case.
c) ALLEGATION OF FORGERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHEATING:
141 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
220. It is the allegation of the prosecution that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.1 to 4 have created false documents for the purpose of cheating HAL and thereby committed an offence of forgery. It is further alleged that accused No.1 and 2 have forged Receiving Reports, inspection reports and accused No.2 stealthily by using IDs of PW.20 and PW.27 created false electronic record over the system and accused No.3 and 4 forged Delivery Challans showing the return of finished, fabricated brackets without returning the said fabricated brackets and forged the invoices for making false claim from HAL.
221. In this regard, it is proper to know the definition of forgery and essential ingredients to constitute an offence: -
463. Forgery: - [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
The essential ingredients are: -
(i) the making of a false document or part of it and;
(ii) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section viz. (a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property; or (d) to cause any person to 142 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
222. Making a false document has been defined u/s 464 of IPC which reads as follows: -
464. Making a false document: - [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -
First: - who dishonesty or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] or any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature];
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record [electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly: - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly: - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] or any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception 143 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the documents or electronic record of the nature of the alteration].
223. To constitute an offence u/s 468 of IPC, the material ingredients are: -
(i) Document in question is forged.
(ii) Accused forged it.
(iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for cheating.
224. The evidence of the prosecution proves that accused No.1 has got the RRs generated through PW.19 Bhanuprakash falsely, stating that the inspection of brackets at View Room-2 has been completed by the Quality Department. Accused No.1 has signed these RRs knowingly and fraudulently, confirming the inspection of brackets by the Quality Department and thereby created a document showing the supply of brackets by M/s. Dynatech and their acceptance by HAL - HD.
225. It is further proved by the prosecution that accused No.1 without there being any supply of 54 brackets by M/s. Dynatech to HAL as mentioned in the Delivery Challans, dishonestly sent payment advices signed by him to the Finance Department along with Receiving Reports and other documents for making payment to M/s. Dynatech.
144 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
226. It is alleged that accused No.2 has inspected and cleared the RRs showing the inspection and misused the IFS IDs of PW.20 and PW.27 for making false electronic record.
227. In this regard, PW.20 and PW.27 have deposed their detail evidence, how their respective IDs have been misused in the present case for showing the inspection and release of brackets. Further, it is pertinent to note the evidence of PW.10 who conducted internal investigation about this aspect. He has deposed how the ID of PW.20 and 27 have been misused for showing the inspection and release of brackets.
228. Regarding this allegation, it is pertinent to note the internal report of PW.10 as per Ex.P.58. The contents of para No.15. 15 (a) to (l) are as follows:-
15. Further following was observed on analysis of the log details & other information:
a) In case of all the work orders receipt of items in View Room 2 & inspection of the parts was done simultaneously and by same individual.
RR No. WO No. Details of Receipt Details of Inspection ID Date Time ID Date Time HA11-2184 7505217556 69515 29/01/11 08:27:18 AM 69515 29/01/11 08:27:24 AM HA11-2185 7505217556 69515 29/01/11 08:28:05 AM 69515 29/01/11 08:28:10 AM HA11-2069 7505217556 69111 15/02/11 10:49:10 AM 69111 15/02/11 10:49:14 AM HA11-2072 7505217558 69111 15/02/11 10:50:12 AM 69111 15/02/11 10:50:16 AM HA11-2070 7505217553 69515 19/02/11 09:56:12 AM 69515 19/02/11 09:56:17 AM HA11-2071 7505217557 69515 19/02/11 09:56:57 AM 69515 19/02/11 09:57:01 AM HA11-2302 7505217559 69515 26/02/11 11:02:12 AM 69515 26/02/11 11:02:18 AM HA11-2301 7505217560 69513 24/02/11 10:26:12 AM 69513 24/02/11 10:26:19 AM
b) It is noticed that all the 8 RR's were generated before inspection of the parts, whereas as per procedure RR was generated after inspection of parts.
Work Order No. RR No. & Date Date of Inspection 145 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J 7505217557 HB11-2071 dated 10/02/2011 19/02/2011 7505217560 HB11-2301 dated 23/02/2011 24/02/2011 7505217556 HA11-2184 dated 27/01/2011 29/01/2011 7505217558 HB11-2069 dated 10/02/2011 15/02/2011 7505217559 HB11-2072 dated 10/02/2011 15/02/2011 7505217555 HB11-2302 dated 23/02/2011 26/02/2011 7505217555 HA11-2185 dated 27/01/2011 29/01/2011 7505217553 HB11-2070 dated 10/02/2011 19/02/2011
c) It is noticed that in case of all the 7 work orders (7505217553, 7505217554, 7505217555, 7505217556, 7505217557, 7505217558 & 7505217559) released for finishing operations by Shri Ajith Kumar MV (ID 69515) & Shri Venkatesh M (ID 69111), immediately after these individuals the next log in from the same computer was of Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513). Log in details of these systems are as under:
Machine Date Logged in by Next log in from the same machine ID Time ID Time VIEWR00M2/VIEW2 29/01/2011 69515 08:26:39 AM 66513 08:50:06 AM VIEWR00M2/VIEWROOM2-1 15/02/2011 69111 10:39:03 AM 66513 10:51:54 AM VIEWR00M2/VIEWROOM2-1 19/02/2011 69515 09:55:17 AM 66513 09:57:29 AM VIEWR00M2/VIEWROOM2-1 26/02/2011 69515 11:01:38 AM 66513 11:04:44 AM
d) On 29/01/2011, work order no.7505217556 was cleared for finishing operations by Shri Ajith Kumar (MV (ID 69515) at 08:27:18 AM & the corresponding RR (HA11-2184) i.e. within ½ an hour, whereas as per procedure RR was generated after inspection of parts and invariably there was a time gap of 1 to 2 days between these 2 activities.
e) On 15/02/2011 after logging in at 10:39:03Hrs, Shri Venkatesh M (ID 6911) had released 6 work orders 7509003568, 7510201450,k 7510202852, 7509003557, 7505217554 & 7505217558. The 1st work order (7509003568) was released at 10:40:41Hrs & the 2nd work order (7510201450) was released at 10:44:12Hrs i.e., after a gap of almost 3 ½ minutes, whereas in the case of subsequent work orders the gap was between 1 to 2 minutes. The last work order i.e. 7505217558 was released at 10:50:12 Hrs and at 10:51:54 Hrs Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513) had
146 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J logged in from the same machine. Also, as per route books, only parts in the 1st work order 7509003568 were inspected by Shri Venkatesh M (ID 69111). Parts in work order 7510201450 were inspected by Shri Santosh C (69312) & the parts in work orders 7510202852 & 7509003557 were inspected by Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513).
f) On 19/02/2011 log in took place using ID of Shri Ajith Kumar MV (69515) at 09:55:17 Hrs and parts (Brackets) in work orders 7505217553 & 7505217557 were released for finishing operations. Work order 7505217557 was released at 09:57:01 AM. Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513) had logged in from the same machine at 09:57:29 AM & the corresponding RR's (HB11-2070 & HB11-2071) were cleared by 09:59:41AM. It is seen that gap between release of work order 7505217557 using ID of Shri Ajith Kumar MV & log in by Shri HM Ramesh is just 28 seconds i.e. barely just enough time for a person to log off from one ID & log in from another ID indicating that most probably same individual had logged in initially using ID of Shri Ajith Kumar MV & subsequently using ID of Shri HM Ramesh.
g) Also, it is seen that receipt of Brackets in work orders 7505217553 & 7505217557 by View Room 2, Inspection & release of these Brackets for finishing operations and clearance of the corresponding RR's (HB11-2070 & HB11-2071) took place in less than 5 minutes, i.e. receipt, inspection of parts and clearance of the RR's took place simultaneously, whereas as per procedure RR was generated after the parts were inspected & released for finishing operations and invariably there was a time gap of 1 to 2 days between these 2 activities.
h) On 24/02/2011 after logging in at 09:57:34 Hrs, Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513) had released 4 work orders for finishing operations including work order 7505217560 & cleared 26 RR's. The last activity (clearance of RR HB11-2314) took place at 10:33:09 Hrs. The gap between log on time & last activity carried out is around 36 minutes & generally 147 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J around 1 minute or so is required for releasing a work order for finishing operations or for clearing an RR in IFS. Also, it was seen that there was no abnormal time gap between the clearances of any of these RR's or work orders & all the activities took place in continuation. Further on arranging sequentially the RR's cleared & work orders released by Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513) after logging on at 09:57:34Hrs, then release of 'Brackets' in work order 7505217560 for finishing operations is the 24th activity that was carried out. These facts indicate that most likely there was no misuse of ID of Shri HM Ramesh to release the 'Brackets' in work order 7505217560 for finishing operations.
i) On 26/02/2011 log in took place using ID of Shri Ajith Kumar MV (69515) at 11:01:38 Hrs and parts (Brackets) in work order 7505217559 were released for finishing operations at 11:02:12 AM. Shri HM Ramesh (ID 66513) had logged in from the same machine at 11:04:44AM & cleared 11 RR's including RR's HB11-2302 pertaining to work order 7505217559 & HB11-2301 pertaining to work order 7505217560 released for finishing operations by HM Ramesh on 24/02/2011.
j) Also, it is seen that receipt of Brackets in work order 7505217559 by View Room 2, Inspection & release of these Brackets for finishing operations and clearance of the corresponding RR (HB11-2302) took place in less than 5 minutes, i.e. receipt, inspection of parts and clearance of the RR took place simultaneously, whereas as per procedure RR was generated after the parts were inspected & released for finishing operations and invariably there was a time gap of 1 to 2 days between these 2 activities.
k) Brackets in all the 08 work orders were released for finishing operations from the computers of View Room 2, prima facie implying that the person who has misused the ID of Shri Ajith Kumar MV & possibly others also is from View Room 2 only having access to the systems of View Room 2. Also, the computers of View Room 2 were placed centrally so 148 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J that personnel working in View Room 2 had easy access to the machines.
l) In case of work order 7505217555, though the RR was cleared in IFS on 16/02/2011 the physical copy of RR (HA11-2185) was signed by Shri HM Ramesh (66513) on 29/01/2011 i.e. the date on which Brackets in WO 7505217555 were released for finishing operations in IFS implying that in reality both release of parts for finishing operations & clearance of RR took place simultaneously.
229. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that accused No.2 has signed on all the RRs for having inspected the RRs and thereby created false documents. The prosecution has further proved that accused No.2 misused IFS IDs of his colleagues PW.20 and PW.27 to release the parts for finishing operations and thereby created false electronic record.
230. It is an admitted fact that when M/s. Dynatech claimed the payment from M/s. HAL in respect of four purchase orders it was a registered partnership firm. It is further admitted that the said registered firm converted into a Joint Stock Pvt., Ltd., company on 25.3.2012 after receiving the entire payment in respect of four purchase orders. At the time of payment accused No.3 was a Consultant/employee of M/s. Dynatech and accused No.4 was its Partner. The prosecution has established that accused No.3 and 4 connived with Accused No.1 and 2 to cheat the HAL and in that process, they have 149 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J created false delivery challans to show the supply of 54 brackets though there was actually no supply of brackets mentioned in the delivery challans. Further, the prosecution has proved that accused No.3 and 4 have prepared the invoice for making claim in respect of 54 brackets without supplying any brackets mentioned in the invoices. The evidence of the prosecution proves that accused No.3 and 4 dishonestly manipulated Delivery Challans and Invoices to make a claim from HAL.
231. Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record to support any claim will constitute an offence of forgery. Further, making a false document or false electronic records means who dishonestly or fraudulently, makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record etc., with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record of digital signature was made etc.
232. In the present case, there is ample evidence of the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 and 2 with dishonest and fraudulent intention got generated the RRs through PW.19 and accused No.2 cleared the parts through IFS by misusing the IDs of PW.20 and PW.27, and Accused No.1 processed the payment 150 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J advices signed by him and sent them to Finance Department for making payment to M/s. Dynatech. Further, there is sufficient evidence to prove that accused No.3 and 4 with dishonest and fraudulent intention created false Delivery Challans to show the delivery of brackets to HAL and created false Invoices for claiming the bill amount. Therefore, the prosecution has sufficiently proved the ingredients of Sec. 468 of IPC against accused No.1 to 4.
d) ALLEGATION OF USING AS GENUINE A FORGED DOCUMENT:
233. It is alleged by the prosecution that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, accused No.1 to 4 dishonestly and fraudulently used as genuine a forged documents which they knows or has reason to believe to be a forged documents.
234. Before going to consider the evidence of the prosecution regarding this allegation, it is proper to know the offence defined u/s 471 of IPC which reads as follows: -
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record: - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
151 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
235. In the present case, the prosecution has established that accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy have forged the Delivery Challans, Receiving Reports, Invoices and Payment Advices to cheat the M/s. HAL. Further, the prosecution has established that accused No.1 to 4 dishonestly and fraudulently used as genuine forged documents and electronic record to cheat M/s. HAL and to make a wrongful gain to M/s. Dynatech. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence u/s 471 of IPC are established by the prosecution.
e) ALLEGATION FOR CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT:
236. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 and 2 while discharging their duties as public servants, by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing their position as public servants obtained for themselves or for any other person, valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
237. Before considering the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to consider the principles of the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 826 in the case of S.P. Bhatnagar and another vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: -
152 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J The abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of S. 5 (1)(d) must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the Accused caused deliberate loss to the department. It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the Accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained any pecuniary advantage for some other person.
238. In order to attract the offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove affirmatively that the Accused No.1 and 2 by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position have obtained for themselves or for any other person a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In the light of the requirement of the law, if the evidence of the prosecution in the present case is assessed, none of the witnesses examined and relied upon by the prosecution, have deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 have obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage to themselves or for any other person. Further, even in the internal investigation by the HAL by PW.10 and his report Ex.P.58, it is not revealed about any act of accused No.1 and 2 taking any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 and 4 to make wrongful gain to them. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct as provided under Sec. 13(1)(d) are not established in the present case against accused No.1 and 2.
153 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
239. From the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 4 have committed an offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of funds, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine forged documents which are punishable u/s 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
240. Therefore, the accused No.1 to 4 are found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Hence, I answer Point No.1 to 4 in the affirmative and Point No.5 in the negative.
241. Point No.6: In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
154 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J To hear regarding the sentence for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC from the respective accused.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me personally and incorporated additional paragraphs directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2016) (BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. D.G. Hegde for CBI, learned counsel for accused No.1 to 4 and accused No.1 to 4 regarding the sentence.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that maximum sentence may be imposed against the accused No.1 to 4.
The learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 4 urged for taking lenient view stating that accused are first offenders, accused No.1 and 2 have been dismissed from the service of HAL about two years back, they are young, main earning members of the family, having small children and M/s. Dynatech has been already block listed from the HAL and there is a marriage 155 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J ceremony of daughter of accused No.4 during August 2016 and accused No.3 and 4 are running a company having 250 employees and a severe punishment will make their company to close and the employees and their family members will suffer in that event.
Accused No.1 submitted to take lenient view stating that he is first time offender, he has been already dismissed from the service of HAL, got family, main earning member in the family and severe punishment will cause hardship to his family.
Accused No.2 submitted to take lenient view stating that he is first time offender, he has been already dismissed from the service of HAL, got family, main earning member in the family and severe punishment will cause hardship to his family.
Accused No.3 and 4 submitted to take lenient view stating that accused No.3 is aged 35 years, they are running company and about 250 employees are working in their factory and in the event of imposing severe punishment, their business will be affected and their employees will suffer and during August 2016, there is a marriage ceremony of daughter of accused No.4.
As seen from the submission made from both sides, it is admitted that accused No.1 and 2 who were the employees of HAL have been dismissed about 2 years back from their service 156 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J after holding Departmental Enquiry as per rules. Further, HAL has already black listed M/s. Dynatech as their vendor for supply of any article. The recovery proceedings for recovery of loss is also initiated by the HAL against M/s. Dynatech.
Considering all the contentions urged by the accused and their learned counsel, gravity of the offences, the dismissal of accused No.1 and 2 from their service and black listing of M/s. Dynatech from the list of vendors by HAL, it is proper to take some lenient view in the facts and circumstances of the present case while imposing sentence against all accused. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER For an offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC, Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC, Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to 157 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 468 of IPC Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 471 of IPC Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.
All substantive sentences imposed to accused No.1 to 4 shall run concurrently and the sentence of fine of respective accused shall run consecutively.
158 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Acting u/s 428 Cr.P.C., the days spent by accused No.1 to 4 in judicial custody during investigation and trial of this case if any is given set off towards the imprisonment ordered.
Free copy of judgment is supplied to all the accused in the open court.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of April 2016) (BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1: Suryakanth Noubad PW-2: Gangadharaiah PW-3: Sathyajith Row PW-4: Manjunath N PW-5: Eerabasappa PW-6: Ashok Kumar Sahoo PW-7: P. Vijaya Bhaskar PW-8: C. Umesh PW-9: M.G. Sen PW-10: T. Srihari PW-11: C. Mallikarjuna PW-12: N. Jayasimha PW-13: K. Venkateshalu PW-14: P.N. Venugopal PW-15: K.C. Mahesh PW-16: S. Chethana PW-17: B.R. Girish PW-18: Santhosh PW-19: A. Bhanu Prakash 159 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J PW-20: M.V. Ajith Kumar PW-21: Ranganatha Swamy PW-22: Dinakar Toppo PW-23: A.P. Lokesh PW-24: Nagendra Kumar Shettigar PW-25: C.B. Shivalingaiah PW-26: R. Prashanth PW-27: M. Venkatesh PW-28: B. Bhattacharya PW-29: G.R. Hariprasad PW-30: M. Prabhu Ram PW-31: R.K. Upadhyaya PW-32: S. Ramesh PW-33: R. Sathish Kumar PW-34: P.S. Verghese PW-35: K.Y. Guruprasad LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
DW-1: Suresh P.V. DW-2: Ramesh Rathod DW-3: Lokesh H. DW-4: Ashok Kumar DW-5: K.T. Joseph LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint dated 20.3.2013 (6 sheets). Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Letter dt. 3.6.2013 addressed to the CBI. Ex.P2(a): Signature of PW.2.
Ex.P2(b): List enclosed to the letter dt. 3.6.2013 Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Form-A of M/s Dynatech-4 sheets. Ex.P.4: Form-C pertaining to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices.
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of Form No.1 of M/s. Dynatech Tools &
Devices
Ex.P.6: Copy of the Partnership Deed.
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Form-D.
Ex.P.8: Copy of Form II (change in address of firm).
Ex.P.9: Copy of the Form-V.
Ex.P.10: Copy of Reconstitution of partnership deed.
Ex.P.11: Certified copy of Form-D.
160 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J
Ex.P.12: Copy of Form-II (change in the address of firm). Ex.P.13: Certified copy of Form-D (change in the constitution of the firm).
Ex.P.14: Copy of Re-constitution of partnership deed. Ex.P.15: Certified copy of Form-D Ex.P.16: Form-V (change in the constitut8ion of the firm). Ex.P.17: Reconstitution of partnership deed. Ex.P.18: Certified copy of Form-D of Dynatech. Ex.P.19: Copy of Form-II change in the address of the firm. Ex.P.20: Certified copy of Form 'D' of Dynatech. Ex.P.21: Copy of Form-IV (change in the address of the partners).
Ex.P22: Certified copy of Form-D of Dynatech.
Ex.P23: Form-IV (Change in the address of partners
Ex.P24: Form-D of M/s Dynatech
Ex.P25: Form-IV (change in the address of partners)
Ex.P26: Form-D of M/s Dynatech
Ex.P27: Form-IV (change in the address of partners)
Ex.P28 & 29: Form-D of M/s. Dynatech
Ex.P30: Form-II of M/s. Dynatech (change in the address)
Ex.P31: Form-D of M/s. Dynatech
Ex.P32: Form-V of M/s. Dynatech
Ex.P33: Reconstitution of partnership deed
Ex.P34: Form-D of M/s. Dynatech
Ex.P35: Letter dt. 31.5.2013 addressed to K.Y. Guruprasad
Ex.P35(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P36: Certificate of incorporation
Ex.P37: Form No.1 with Memorandum of Articles of
Association
Ex.P38: Certified copy of Form No.18
Ex.P39: Certified copy of Form No.32
Ex.P40: Certified copy of Form No.37
Ex.P41: Certified copy of Form No.39
Ex.P42: Certified copy of Form No.8
Ex.P43: Certificate of Registration of Mortgage
Ex.P44: Personal file of A1 with Master Card (237 pages)
Ex.P45: Personal file of A2 Vol.I (284 pages)
Ex.P46: Personal file of A2 Vol.II (140 pages)
Ex.P47: Vendor Registration file (22 pages)
Ex.P47(a): Application for recommendation Ex.P48: Rate Contract dt. 22.7.2004 between HAL & Dynatech 161 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P48(a): Signature of PW.23 in the last sheet Ex.P49: Purchase Order file for P.O. No. 5551997 Ex.P49(a): Purchase Order No.5551997 dt. 23.6.05 (3 sheets) Ex.P49(b): Material Purchase request - 2 sheets Ex.P49(c): Receiving Report Ex.P49(c-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P49(c-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P49(d): Receiving Report Ex.P49(d-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P49(d-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P49(e): Purchase Order at page-7 Ex.P49(f): Signature of PW.11 in Ex.P49(b) Ex.P49(g): Sub-contract payment advice Ex.P49(h): Signature of A1 in Ex.P49(g) Ex.P50: Purchase Order file for P.O. No. 5551998 (29 pages) Ex.P50(a): Purchase Order No.5551998 (3 sheets) Ex.P50(b): Material Purchase request - 2 sheets Ex.P50(c): I Article Inspection Report Ex.P50(d): Receiving Report Ex.P50(d-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P50(d-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P50(e): Receiving Report Ex.P50(e-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P50(e-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P50(f): Signature of PW.11 in Ex.P50(b) Ex.P50(g): Sub-contract payment advice Ex.P50(h): Signature of A1 in Ex.P50(g) Ex.P50(i): Relevant portion in page-18 Ex.P50(j) & (k): Signature of PW.18 at page-18 Ex.P51: Route Cards for work orders Ex.P51(a) to 51(b): Route cards for work order Nos.
(1) 7505217557, (2) 7505217559, (3) 7505217553, (4) 7505217555, (5) 7505217558, (6) 7505217560, (7) 7505217554 and (8) 7505217556 Ex.P52: Rate Contract dt. 22.7.2005 between HAL and M/s. Dynatech (6 sheets) Ex.P52(a): Signature of A4 Ex.P52(b): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P53: Purchase Order file for P.O. No. 5551999 162 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P53(a): P.O. No. 5551999 (3 sheets) Ex.P53(b): Material Purchase Report Ex.P53(c): I. Article Inspection Ex.P53(c-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P53(c-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P53(d): Receiving Report Ex.P53(d-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P53(d-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P53(g): Sub-contract payment advice Ex.P53(h): Signature of A1 in Ex.P53(g) Ex.P53(i): Relevant portion at page-18 Ex.P53(j): Signature of A2 at page-18 Ex.P53(k): Signature of Ravishankar Ex.P53(l): Signature PW.25 in Ex.P53(c) Ex.P54: File pertaining to Purchase Order No. 5552000 Ex.P54(a): Purchase Order No.5552000 (4 sheets) Ex.P54(b): Material Purchase request Ex.P54(c): Receiving Report Ex.P54(c-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P54(c-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P54(d): Receiving Report Ex.P54(d-a): Signature of PW.19 Ex.P54(d-b): Signature of A2 Ex.P54(e): Signature of PW.11 in Ex.P54(b) Ex.P54(f): Sub-contract Payment advice Ex.P54(g): Signature of A1 in Ex.P54(f) Ex.P55: Non-refundable material gate pass No. 6424/09039 dt. 10.3.2007 Ex.P55(a): Annexure List dt. 10.3.2007 Ex.P55(b): Signature of PW.11 Ex.P55(c): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P55(a-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P56: Material Requisition No. 81393 dt. 07.03.2007 Ex.P56(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P57: Material Requisition No. 81424 dt. 07.03.2007 Ex.P57(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P58: Investigation Report file Ex.P58(a): Letter dt. 9.2.2012 Ex.P58(b): Production Query dated 23.7.2007 163 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P58(B-a): Endorsement Ex.P58(B-b): Signature of PW.21 Ex.P58(c): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P58(d): Complaint in Ex.P58 2 pages (at page 54855) Ex.P58(e): Letter at page No.157 of Ex.P58 Ex.P58(f): Letter from Outsourcing Department at page 173 Ex.P58(g): Letter from Outsourcing Department at page 182 Ex.P58(h): E-mail & encl. From M/s. Dynatech Ex.P58(i): Letter (at page No.197) dt. 23.5.2012 Ex.P58(j): Letter at page No.198 Ex.P58(k): Letter (at page No.199) dt. 01.06.2012 Ex.P58(l): Letter/E-mail of M/s. Dynatech dt. 25.5.12 Ex.P58(m):Statement of A2 - 3 sheets Ex.P58(n): Signature of A2 Ex.P58(o): Signature of independent witnesses Ex.P58(p): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P58(q): Statement of A2 at page 316 Ex.P58(r): Signature of A2 Ex.P58(s): Signature of Vaidehi (witness) Ex.P58(t): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P58(u): Statement of A2 at page 327 - 6 sheets Ex.P58(v): Signature of A2 Ex.P58(w): Signature of Manjunath (witness) Ex.P58(x): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P58(y): Statement of A1 at page 344 - 6 sheets Ex.P58(z): Statement of A1 at page 355 - 7 sheets Ex.P58(aa): Statement of A1 at page 368 - 1 sheet Ex.P58(bb): Statement of A1 at page 370 Ex.P58(cc): Signature of Rasika (witness) on Ex.P58(y) Ex.P58(dd): Signature of A1 on Ex.P58(y) Ex.P58(ee): Signature of PW.10 on Ex.P58(y) Ex.P58(ff): Signature of A1 on Ex.P58(z) Ex.P58(gg): Signature of witness Rasika on Ex.P58(z) Ex.P58(hh): Signature of PW.10 on Ex.P58(z) Ex.P58(ii): Signature of A1 on Ex.P58(aa) Ex.P58(jj): Signature of witness (V. Nagaraj) on Ex.P58(aa) Ex.P58(kk): Signature of PW.10 on Ex.P58(aa) Ex.P58(ll): Signature of A1 on Ex.P58(bb) Ex.P58(mm): Signature of witness Shamima Minz on Ex.P58(bb) Ex.P58(nn): Signature of PW.10 on Ex.P58(bb) Ex.P58(o-o): Relevant entry (at page No.108) dt. 29.1.2011 Ex.P58(p-p): Relevant entry dated 19.2.2011 at page No.109 Ex.P58(q-q): Relevant entry dt. 26.2.2011 at page No.110 Ex.P58(r-r): IFS Data base record/ (i.e., page 165) Annexure-D 164 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P58(s-s): Letter dated 22.3.2012 of PW.22 at sheet No.97 Ex.P58(s-sa): Signature of PW.22 Ex.P58(tt): Relevant entries in page No.108 in Ex.P58 Ex.P59: Payment file for P.O.No. 5551997 Ex.P59(a): D.C. No.1099 Ex.P59(a-a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P59(a-b): Signature of PW.26 Ex.P59(b): D.C.No.1126 Ex.P59(b-a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P59(c): Payment advice Ex.P59(d): Signature of A1 Ex.P59(e): Payment advice Ex.P59(f): Signature of A1 Ex.P59(g): Invoice No.541 Ex.P59(g-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P59(h): Invoice No. 538 Ex.P59(h-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P59(i): Receiving Report Ex.P59(j): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P59(k): Receiving Report Ex.P59(l): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P59(m) & (n): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P59(j) Ex.P59(o) & (p): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P59(k) Ex.P59(q): Signature of PW.15 in Ex.P59(a) Ex.P59(r): P.O. No.5551997 Ex.P60: Payment file for P.O. No.5551998 Ex.P60(a): D.C.No. 1047 Ex.P60(a-a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P60(b): D.C. No.1070 Ex.P60(b-a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P60(c): Payment advice Ex.P60(d): Signature of A1 Ex.P60(e): Receiving report Ex.P60(f): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P60(g): Payment advice Ex.P60(h): Signature of A1 Ex.P60(i): Receiving Report Ex.P60(j): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P60(k): Invoice No.536 Ex.P60(k-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P60(l): Invoice No.514 Ex.P60(l-a): Signature of PW.23 165 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P60(m) & (n): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P60(e) Ex.P60(o) & (p): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P60(i) Ex.P60(q): Signature of PW.13 in Ex.P60(a) Ex.P60(r): Signature of PW.14 in Ex.P60(b) Ex.P61: Payment file for P.O. No.5551999 Ex.P61(a): D.C.No. 1100 Ex.P61(a-a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P61(a-b): Signature of PW.26 Ex.P61(b): D.C. No.1125 Ex.P61(b-a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P61(c): Payment advice Ex.P61(d): Signature of A1 Ex.P61(e): Receiving report Ex.P61(f): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P61(g): Invoice No. 540 Ex.P61(g-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P61(h): Payment advice Ex.P61(i): Signature of A1 Ex.P61(j): Receiving Report Ex.P61(k): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P61(l): Invoice No.539 Ex.P61(l-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P61(m) & (n): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P61(j) Ex.P61(o) & (p): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P61(e) Ex.P61(q): Signature of PW.15 in Ex.P61(a) Ex.P62: Payment file for P.O. No.5552000. Ex.P62(a): D.C.No. 1071 Ex.P62(b): D.C.No. 1048 Ex.P62(c): Payment advice Ex.P62(d): Signature of A1 Ex.P62(e): Receiving report Ex.P62(f): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P62(g): Invoice No.537 Ex.P62(g-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P62(h): Payment advice Ex.P62(i): Signature of A1 Ex.P62(j): Receiving Report Ex.P62(k): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P62(l): Invoice No.515 Ex.P62(l-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P62(l): Invoice No.514 Ex.P62(m) & (n): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P62(e) 166 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P62(o) & (p): Signature of A1 & A2 in Ex.P62(j) Ex.P62(q): Signature of PW.13 Ex.P62(r): Signature of PW.14 Ex.P63: ALH Incoming Register Ex.P63(a): Relevant entry at page 61 Ex.P63(b): Relevant entry dt.19.1.2011 at Sl.No.680 at page 62 Ex.P63(c): Relevant entry dt.19.1.2011 at Sl.No.681 at page 52 Ex.P63(d) to (g): Relevant four entries dt.19.1.2011 at page 56 vide Sl.No.723 to 726 Ex.P63(h) to (k): Relevant four entries dt.8.2.2011 at page 64 vide Sl.No.845 to 848 Ex.P63(l): Relevant entry dt. 9.3.2011 at page 86 at Sl.
No.7252.
Ex.P64: Payment Voucher dt. 15.2.2011 Ex.P64(a): Signature of Case Worker Ex.P64(b): Signature of Manager Ex.P64(c): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P65: Payment voucher dt. 21.2.2011 Ex.P65(a): Signature of Case Worker Ex.P65(b): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P66: Payment voucher dt. 11.3.2011 Ex.P66(a): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P66(b): Signature of Manager Ex.P67: Payment voucher dt. 11.3.2011 Ex.P67(a): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P67(b): Signature of Manager Ex.P68: Seizure Memo dt. 5.11.2013 Ex.P68(a): Signature of PW.7 Ex.P69: Purchase Order file No. 50615 50 relating to procurement of flat aluminium (29 pages) Ex.P69(a): Import Bill at page No.115 of Ex.P69 Ex.P69(b): Receiving Report at page No.128 Ex.P69(c): Receiving Report at page No.129 Ex.P69(d): Material Purchase request No. 6461 - 0065 Ex.P69(e): Signature of Devaraj Ex.P69(f): Signature of PW.8 167 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P69(g): Signature of Subbaiah Ex.P70: Letter dt. 20.5.2003 of Chief Manager, Canara Bank Ex.P70(a): Signature of PW.9 Ex.P71: Certified copy of Current Account Opening Form Ex.P71(a): Signature of Usha S. Kulakarni on sheet No.3 Ex.P72: Certified copy of Statement of account of M/s. Dynatech - 2 sheets Ex.P72(a): Signature of Smt. Usha S. Kulakarni Ex.P72(b): Relevant entry dated 18.12.2011 for Rs.3,92,781/- Ex.P72(c): Relevant entry dated 25.2.2011 for Rs.2,29,504/- Ex.P72(d): Relevant entry dated 11.3.2011 for Rs.20,45,854/- Ex.P72(e): Relevant entry dated 11.3.2011 for Rs.6,93,438/- Ex.P73: Letter dt. 19.1.2012 of Sr. Manager (Vigilance) with enclosure total 3 sheets Ex.P73(a): Copy of the production query (Sheet No.3) Ex.P74: Material Incoming Entry Register Ex.P74(a): Relevant entries in page No.80 (Sl. No.14815) Ex.P74(b): Relevant entries at page No.30 Ex.P74(c) & (d): Signature of PW.14 Ex.P75: Letter dt. 21.10.2011 of PW.10 to Sr. Manager Vigilance HAL -2 sheets Ex.P75(a): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P76: Letter dt. 11.6.2013 of Sri. T. Srihari (PW.10) to Chief Manager Vigilance, HAL - 2 sheets Ex.P76(a): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P77: Letter dt. 4.3.2014 Ex.P77(a): Signature of PW.10 Ex.P78: Material Incoming Entry Register Ex.P78(a): Relevant entries at Sl. No. of page No.190 in Ex.P78 Ex.P78(b) to (c): Signature/Initials of PW.13 Ex.P78(d) to (g): Signatures of PW.24 at page 190 Ex.P79: Leave application dt. 8.3.2011 Ex.P79(a): Signature of PW.20 168 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P80: T.A. Claim form dt. 8.3.2011 Ex.P80(a): Signature of PW.20 Ex.P81: Attendance details of PW.20, A2 & CW-31 total 6 sheets Ex.P81(a): Relevant entry at 1st sheet Ex.P81(b) & (c): Relevant entries at 4th sheet Ex.P82: One file of M/s. Dynatech Containing Invoice & Payment Vouchers etc., 4 sheets Ex.P82(1) to (10): Invoices Ex.P82(1)(a) to (4-a): Signature of A4 Ex.P82(5-a) to 10(a): Signatures of one Sri. B.D. Thimmaiah Ex.P83: One file of M/s. Dynatech Tools captioned as Bracket # 4- LH-201Y-9664-170-201/202 - 17 sheets Ex.P83(1): Process Plan (page 7) Ex.P83(2) to (5): Progress Cards Ex.P83(1)(a): Signature of PW.25 Ex.P84: One file of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices titled as Bracket LH-201Y-9664-1075-201 (15 sheets) Ex.P84(1) to (4): Progress Cards Ex.P85: One file pertaining to M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices containing DC's Material Gate Pass & correspondence
- total 27 sheets Ex.P85(1) to 85 (12): Deliver Challans Ex.P85(3-a) & (85(7-a): Signature of PW.23 Ex.P85(13): Non-returnable material gate pass with annexure -2 sheets (page Nos.13 & 14) Ex.P85[13(a) & (13-b)] Signatures of PW.23 Ex.P86: One file of M/s. Dynatech Tools & Devices captioned as Inspection Report for supply of Brackets (55 sheets) Ex.P86(a): Inspection Report - 11 sheets [page Nos. 46 to 55 in Ex.P86] Ex.P86(b): Signature of Sri. Manu Ex.P86(c): Signature of PW.25 [Ex.P86(b) & Ex.P86(c) are in Ex.P86(a)] Ex.P86(d): Final Inspection Report for P.O. No. 5551999 - 5 sheets (page Nos.45 to 41) Ex.P86(e): Signature of Manu 169 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P86(f): Signature of PW.25 Ex.P86(g): Final Inspection Report for P.O. No. 5551998 6 sheets (page Nos. 24 to 29) Ex.P86(h): Signature of Manu Ex.P86(i): Signature of PW.25 Ex.P86(j): Final Inspection Report for P.O. No.5552000 - 6 sheets (page No.18 to 23) Ex.P86(k): Signature of Manu Ex.P86(l): Signature of PW.25 Ex.P87: Material Incoming entry Register for the period from 3.3.2011 to 15.4.2011 Ex.P87(a) to 87(c): Signature of PW.24 at Sl. No.9 to 11 dt. 9.3.2011 Ex.P88: Original Delivery Challan No. 1098 dated 31.1.2011 Ex.P88(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P89: Original Delivery Challan No. 1242 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P89(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P90: Original D.C. No. 1091 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P90(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P91: Original D.C. No. 1096 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P91(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P92: Original D.C. No. 1240 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P92(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P93: Original D.C. No. 1090 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P93(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P94: Original D.C. No. 1095 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P94(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P95: Original D.C. No. 1068 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P95(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P96: Original D.C. No. 1066 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P96(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P97: Original D.C. No. 1089 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P97(a): Signature of PW.24 170 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P98: Original D.C. No. 1088 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P98(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P99: Original D.C. No. 1094 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P99(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P100: Original D.C. No. 1049 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P100(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P101: Original D.C. No. 1097 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P101(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P102: Original D.C. No. 1069 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P102(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P103: Original D.C. No. 1093 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P103(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P104: Original D.C. No. 1092 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P104(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P105: Original D.C. No. 1045 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P105(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P106: Original D.C. No. 1044 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P106(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P107: Original D.C. No. 1067 of M/s. Dynatech Ex.P107(a): Signature of PW.24 Ex.P108: Route Book for Work Order No. 7509003568 Ex.P108(a) Signature of PW.27 Ex.P109: Route Book for Work Order No. 7509003557 Ex.P109(a) Signature of A2 Ex.P110: Route Book for Work Order No. 7510201450 Ex.P110(a) Signature of C. Santhosh Ex.P111: Route Book relating to Work Order No. 7510202852 Ex.P111(a) Signature of A2 Ex.P112: Letter dt. 5.3.2014 of HAL 171 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.P112(a): Signature of PW.28 Ex.P113: Seizure Memo dt. 5.3.2014 Ex.P113(a): Signature of PW.29 Ex.P114: Seizure Memo dt. 4.3.2014 Ex.P114(a): Signature of PW.30 Ex.P115: Original Late Lunch entry Register of Security Dept. in respect of 25.1.2011 to 15.7.2011 Ex.P116: Seizure Memo dt. 13.2.2014 Ex.P116(a): Signature of PW.31 Ex.P117: Search List dt. 26.3.2013 Ex.P117(a): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P117(b): Signature of Thimmaiah Ex.P117(c): Signature of PW.34 Ex.P118: Search List dt. 26.3.2013 Ex.P118(a): Signature of PW.32 Ex.P118(b): Signature of A3 Ex.P118(c): Signature of PW.34 Ex.P119: Seizure Memo dt. 4.3.2014 Ex.P119(a): Signature of PW.33 Ex.P120: Original FIR Ex.P120(a): Signature of SP, CBI/ACB/BLR Ex.P121: Search List dt. 26.3.2013 in respect of search of residence of A2 Ex.P121(a): Signature of PW.35 Ex.P122: Search List dt. 26.3.2013 in respect of search conducted at the residence of A1.
Ex.P123: Letter dt. 26.06.2013 from the Vigilance Dept. HAL to the CBI with encl. -3 sheets Ex.P124: Letter dt. 4.2.2014 of Chief Manager (Vig), HAL, Bengaluru - 4 sheets Ex.P125: Letter dt. 3.12.2011 of HAL, Vigilance Dept., with 172 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J enclosures -3 sheets Ex.P126: Letter dt. 7.2.2012 of Sr. Manager, (Vig), HAL to Sr. Manager, (Vig), H.O. - 1 sheet Ex.P127: Certified copy of Outsourcing Procedure - 41 sheets LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1: Cancellation Order dated 28.6.2005 Ex.D2: Xerox copies of final inspection reports Ex.D3: One bunch of papers containing delivery notes, non-material gates etc., Ex.D4: Invoice of M/s. Dynatech for delivery challan No. 1088 Ex.D5: Invoice of M/s. Dynatech for delivery challan No. 1089 Ex.D6: Xerox copy of payment advise for Ex.D4 and D5 Ex.D7: Invoice of M/s. Dynatech for delivery challan No. 1090 Ex.D8: Payment advice for Ex.D7 Ex.D9: Invoice of M/s. Dynatech for delivery challan No. 1093 Ex.D10: Xerox copy of payment advice to Ex.D9 Ex.D11: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. Shanmukha Industries (P.O. No. 5553304) Ex.D12: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. CIM Tools (P.O. No. 5553055) Ex.D13: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. CIM Tools (P.O. No. 5553512) Ex.D14: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. Shanmukha Industries (P.O. No. 5553313) Ex.D15: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. Shanmukha Industries (P.O. No. 5552415) Ex.D16: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. CIM Tools (P.O. No. 5552057) Ex.D17: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. CIM Tools (P.O. No. 5552168) Ex.D18: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. Om Shakthi (P.O. No. 5552131) Ex.D19: One file relating to supply of articles by M/s. Shanmukha Industries (P.O. No. 5552716) Ex.D20 to D24: Relevant entries at page No.283 of Ex.P58 Ex.D25: Relevant entry at page No.284 of Ex.P58 Ex.D26: Xerox copy of the Route Book Sheet No.4 of Ex.P109 Ex.D27: Delegation of powers of M/s. HAL (one book) Ex.D28: Entry in Sl. No.4 of page 109 in Ex.P58
173 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.D29: Entry in Sl. No.14 of page 110 in Ex.P58 (ID No. 69515) Ex.D30: Letter from one Renuka to the Senior Manager (Vig.) HAL (Available in Ex.P125) Ex.D31: Letter at page No.193 in Ex.P58 Ex.D32: One file containing letter dated 12.9.2015, copies of work order etc., Ex.D32(a): Xerox copy of the Route Card For Work Order No.7508200515 at page 35 Ex.D32(b): Xerox copy of the Route Book for Work Order No.7508200515 at page 34 Ex.D32(c): Signature of DW1 in Ex.D32(b) Ex.D32(d): Copy of the Route Book for Work Order No.7508200516 Ex.D32(e): Copy of the Route Book for Work Order No.7508200516 Ex.D32(f): Signature of DW1 on Ex.D32(e) Ex.D32(g): Statement of work orders in respect of purchase orders generated from the IFS System of HAL Ex.D33: Purchase Order File No.5553179/SC Ex.D33(a): Sub Contract Payment Advice at Page No.59 Ex.D33(b): Concerned entry in Ex.D33(a) Ex.D33(c): Request for quotation dated 12.7.2006 at page-18 Ex.D33(d): Quotation dated 14.7.2006 of M/s. Dynatech at page-21 Ex.D33(e): M/s. HAL Letter dt. 4.8.2006 at page-25 Ex.D33(f): Letter dated 10.8.2006 of M/s. Dynatech at page-28 Ex.D33(g): Purchase Order dated 25.8.2008 at page-40 Ex.D34: Copy of the sworn affidavit of DW-2 for his examination-in-chief before the Sole Arbitrator in A.C. No. 21/2015 Ex.D35: Certified copy of the order sheet, appeal memorandum and copy of the award in A.S. No. 26/16 Ex.D36: Certified copy of the claim proceedings filed before MSME which was referred to Arbitrator for adjudication pertaining to claim settlement against HAL - RWRDC Division Ex.D37: Certified copy of the order sheet, appeal memorandum and copy of the award in A.S. No. 28/16 Ex.D38: Certified copy of the claim proceedings filed before MSME which was referred to Arbitrator for adjudication pertaining to claim settlement against HAL - Helicopter Division in two spiral binding books 174 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Ex.D39: Certified copy of the order sheet, appeal memorandum and copy of the award in A.S. No. 27/16 Ex.D40: Letter dt. 30.6.2014 of Sri. K.T. Joseph, HAL, Outsourcing department, HAL to M/s. Dynatech Ex.D41: Certified copy of the claim proceedings filed before MSME which was referred to Arbitrator for adjudication pertaining to claim settlement against HAL - MRO Division.
LIST OF MATERAIL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
-
-NIL -
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge And Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru City.
175 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate detailed order.
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
To hear regarding the sentence for the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC from the respective accused.
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
176 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Order pronounced in open court, vide separate detailed order.
ORDER For an offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC, Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC, Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
Further, for an offence punishable u/s 468 of IPC Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 (Nine) months each.
177 Spl.C.C. 237/2014 J Further, for an offence punishable u/s 471 of IPC Accused No.1 M.S. Sanjay, Accused No.2 H.M. Ramesh, Accused No.3 K.V. Hemanth and Accused No.4 B. Damodar are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.
All substantive sentences imposed to accused No.1 to 4 shall run concurrently and the sentence of fine of respective accused shall run consecutively.
Acting u/s 428 Cr.P.C., the days spent by accused No.1 to 4 in judicial custody during investigation and trial of this case if any is given set off towards the imprisonment ordered.
Free copy of judgment is supplied to all the accused in the open court.
(Bheemanagouda K. Naik) XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.