Delhi District Court
Cc No. 80/11 Rc No.11/88 Cbi vs . Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 1/55 on 9 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA :
SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI08) TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
RC No. : 11/88
CC No.: 80/11
PS : CBI/SIU/VIII/New Delhi
CBI
Vs.
Punjab Phosphate & Ors.
1.Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd.
2.Prem Kumar Parmar ( Deceased)
3.Lalit Kumar Parmar
4.Surinder Singh (PO)
5.Ranveer Seth
6.Daulat Singh
7.R.C. Nirmal
8.Pratap Narain
9.Anil Sood ( Deceased)
10.S.D. Raj ( Deceased)
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 1/55
11.M.S. Sandhu
12.Vinod Chandra
13.Y.K. Khattar
14.S.C. Singla ( Deceased)
15. Rajesh Kumar Bhambi
16.Ram Singh
17.Prem Singh
18. Pritam Singh
19.Sant Kumar Sharda
20. Gurjeet Singh Sachdeva
21. Savita Parmar ( Deceased)
22. Punjab Fertilizer & Pesticides Industries Pvt. Ltd.
23.Anoop Kumar Arora ( Deceased ) ...........Accused
O R D E R
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off arguments on the point of charge.
This is an old case wherein RC was registered long back in the year 1988 and the charge sheet was filed by CBI on CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 2/55 02.01.1995. Case is now pending for more than one and a half decades and struck up at the stage of charge. Efforts were made by Ld. Predecessors for concluding the arguments on point of charge but for one or the other reason the arguments were not concluded, considering the fact that 23 accused have been charge sheeted. Considerable time has been consumed in hearing the arguments since a trunk load of documents is relied by the prosecution and substantial time was taken by the counsels for referring to the documents during the course of submissions.
Many of the public servants who have been arrayed as accused have retired over decades while five of the accused namely Prem Kr. Parmar, Savita Parmar, Anil Sood (public servant FICC), S.D. Raj (public servant FICC), S.C. Singla (public servant FICC) and Anoop Kr. Arora have expired.
2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that Sh. P.K. Parmar, then Managing Director of Punjab Phosphate & Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. submitted bogus subsidies claims by falsely showing production and sale of Single Super Phosphate ( hereinafter referred to as SSP) and fraudulently and dishonestly cheated CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 3/55 Govt. of India of sum of Rs. 3,33,45,282/. For the aforesaid purpose other coaccused along with public servants are alleged to have acted in criminal conspiracy and facilitated the accused P.K. Parmar in obtaining bogus subsidy claims.
3. The factual matrix of relevant facts along with the role of the respective accused may be detailed considering the voluminous record and detailed arguments with written submissions running in several hundred pages made on behalf of accused at the stage of charge.
The allegations in brief are that A22 M/s Punjab Fertilizer & Pesticides Industries, Azad Road, Azad Nagar, Chhaheratah, Amritsar(Punjab) having its office at Opp. Church, Ram Bagh Gate, Amritsar, Punjab was established on 29.08.1979 as a partnership concern of Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2), Smt. Sawinder Kaur, Smt. Kamlesh, Smt. Rajwant Kaur and Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, as per partnership deed dated 29.09.1979. A small shed of M/s Gurdial singh Uppal & Sons within the factory premises of M/s Hindustan Embroidary Mills Pvt. Ltd., Azad Road, Chhaheratah, Amritsar was taken on rent of Rs.800/ w.e.f. 01.02.1980 by Sh. CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 4/55 P.K. Parmar (A2) from Sh. Man Mohan Singh of M/s Gurdial Singh Uppal & sons on 25.02.1980. This unit was provisionally registered with DIC, Amritsar vide registration No. 16/01/00524 dated 30.08.1979 for manufacturing of Single Super Phosphate (SSP) which was later on permanently registered vide registration No. 16/01/09999 dated 10.07.1980 on the basis of application dated 25.02.80 of Sh. P.K. Parmar( A2). Further , the name and constitution of M/s Punjab Fertilizer & Pesticide Industries Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar was changed to (A1) M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar on the basis of application dated 06.06.1983 of Sh. P.K. Parmar( A2) declaring himself as Managing Director and Sh. L.K. Parmar ( A3), Sh. Prem Kumar Verma, Smt. Veena W/o Sh. Ajit Kumar, r/o B10/19, Raja Garden, New Delhi, Smt. Sawinder Kaur Gill W/o Sh. S.S. Gill, Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSEB, Patiala and Smt. Inder Bala Luthra W/o Sh. Nanak Chand , R/o Sultan Wind Gate, 3550, Bahadur Nagar, Gali No. 1, Amritsar, as Directors and Sh. Sunil Khanna as Chartered Accountant of the firm. Accordingly M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar was registered with Registrar of Companies, Jallandhar vide registration No. 5470 of 1983 w.e.f. 09.06.1983. Further, Sh. P.K. CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 5/55 Parmar ( A2) vide his application dated 12.12.86 intimated that he was appointed as Managing Director of the company at a salary of Rs.2,000/ per month w.e.f. 09.06.1983 and that Smt. Sawinder Kaur Gill, Smt. Veena and Smt. Indu Bala Luthra, the Directors of the company resigned from the Directorship w.e.f. 21.06.1983. Thus there were only three Directors including Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2), Sh. L.K. Parmar ( A3) and Sh. Prem Kumar Verma though M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar was registered with Registrar of Companies, Jallandhar on 09.06.1983 but the same was reflected on 05.05.1983.
4. It is further the case of prosecution that the FICC was constituted vide resolution No. 16 (24)/77FD(A) headed by Executive Director dated 01.11.1977 of Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer, Govt. of India to adminster and generate the system of retention price for nitrogenous fertilizer and further extended to other fertilizers in terms of Govt. of India Order No. 166(23)/77 FD(A) dated 01.12.77. The work regarding fixation of ex factory price and payment of subsidy was transferred to FICC w.e.f. 01.04.1980. From March, 1976, there was a susidy of Rs. 1250/ CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 6/55 per ton on SSP fertilizer despatched by the factories. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Petroleum, chemical and Fertilizer, Deptt. Of Chemical & Fertilizer vide order No. 4 (27)/80FDAI, dated 29.09.1980 laid down the procedure for submission of subsidy bill and also procedure for inspection by the FICC, New Delhi. Further, vide circular No. 4/13/82/FDAI, dated 05.08.1982, the Department of Chemical and Fertilizer further laid down the procedure for provisional payment of subsidy to SSP manufacturing unit.
Further as per the Fertilizer ( Control) Order, 1957 issued under Essential Commodity Act, 1955 as Fertilizer being essential and controlled commodity, the fertilizer dealers, whether manufacturer or dealers, were required to obtain Dealers Registration Certificate (DRC) Under Clause16 of the Fertilizer ( Control) Order, 1957 from the Chief Agricultural Officer of the respective District.
6. It is the further the case of prosecution that on the basis of application dated 10.08.1979 of Sh. P.K. Parmar(A2), Dealers Registration Certificate NO.89 dated 04.10.79 was issued by the CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 7/55 Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar in favour of M/s Punjab Fertilizers & Phosphate, Industries, Amritsar. Further, Sh. P.K. Parmar vide his application dated 01.02.84 requested to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar for fresh DRC in favour of accused firm along with requisite documents but due to incomplete requisite details, the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar made certain queries for clarification vide their letter dated 03.04.84 of which no reply was submitted by the accused firm. Hence, the firm was not renewed DRC certificate by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar from 25.04.1984.
7. It is further the case of the prosecution that Sh. P.K. Parmar Managing Director of M/s Punjab Fertilizer & Pesticides Industries, Azad Road, Azad Nagar, Chhaheratah, Amritsar, Punjab ( later on changed to M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd. ) and Smt. Savita Parmar W/o Sh. P.K. Parmar entered into a criminal conspiracy with S/ Shri Surender Singh S/o Sh. Santa Singh ( driver of Sh. P.K. Parmar), Ranveer Seth S/o Late Sh. Santha Ram Seth, the then Technical Officer, DIC, Amritsar, Punjab, Daulat Singh S/o Baba Singh then Junior Industrial Promotion Officer, DIC, Amritsar, CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 8/55 R.C. Nirmal S/o Sh. Jee Sukhram, the then Asstt. Manager( Industries), PNB Industrial Area Branch, Ludhiana, Punjab, Pratap Narayan S/o Late Avadhi Narayan, then Executive Director, FICC, New Delhi, Anil Sood S/o Late D.L. Sood, then Junior Accounts Officer, FICC, New Delhi, S.D. Raj S/o Ram lal Chawla, the then Accounts Officer, FICC, New Delhi, Mahender Singh Sandhu, then Accounts Officer, New DelhiVinod Chandra, then Junior Accounts Officer, FICC, New Delhi, Y.R. Khattar S/o Late C.r. Khattar the then Accounts Offier, FICC, New Delhi, S.C. Singla S/o sh. Kishan Swaroop , the then Accounts Officer, FICC, New Delhi, Rajesh Kumar Bhambi S/o sh. C.L. Sharma, the then Jr. Accounts Officer, FICC, New Delhi, Ram Singh S/o Sh. Hargyan Singh, the then Accounts Officer, FICC, New Delhi, Prem Singh S/o Sh. Prabhu Ram, then Director( Finance & Accounts) FICC, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, Pritam Singh, the then Dy. Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh, Sant Kumar Sharda S/o Sh. Krishan Chand Sharda, the then Technical & Development Officer, PNB, Katra Ahluwalia, Amritsar ( Punjab), Gurjeet Singh Sachdeva S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, the then Manager, PNB Katra Ahluwalia, Amritsar to cheat the Govt. of CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 9/55 India by submitting false subsidy claims along with forged documents duly certified by Sh. Surender Khanna, Chartered Accountant of the accused firm. These subsidy claims as detailed in the AnnexureA to the chargesheet were duly signed by Sh. P.K. Parmar himself and the Annexure were certified by Sh. Surender Khanna, Chartered Accountant.
8. It is further alleged that the officials of District Industries Centre, Amritsar and FICC, New Delhi in criminal conspiracy with S/Shri P.K. Parmar, Lalit Kumar Parmar and Surender Khanna by abusing their official position, accepted the said subsidy claims along with forged documents/ Annexures. The FICC officials are alleged to be fully aware that the said subsidy claims were required to be processed and forwarded for recommendation/ sanctioned only by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar as per procedure laid down by the department but accepted and sanctioned the said subsidy claims amounting to Rs. 3,33,45,282/ only on the recommendation of officials of DIC, Amritsar, which was against the laid down procedure.
It is also alleged that the accused firm M/s Punjab Fertilizer CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 10/55 & Pesticides Industries, Amritsar and M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd. had never manufactured any fertilizer in the factory premises at Amrtisar nor had dealt with the process of manufacturing of the said fertilizer during the period in question. It is further alleged that Shri P.K. Parmar had submitted fake/false documents under his signature showing false statements of production of the said fertilizer which were further certified by Sh. Surender Khanna, Chartered Accountant and was accepted/forwarded for sanction of subsidy claims by the officials of DIC, Amritsar without making actual verification of the said claims.
9. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sh. L.K. Parmar (A3) brother of Sh. P.K. Parmar (A2) was one of the active partners of the accused firm and for showing fraudulent sale of SSP fertilizer, a firm M/s Lalit Enterprises had been floated by him. He had also fabricated documents showing sale of fertilizer and transportation through fictitious transport companies. During search, incriminating documents were recovered from him. He had also received draft for subsidy from FICC, New Delhi. CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 11/55
10. The role of the other accused as per chargesheet may also be briefly detailed to appreciate the contentions raised by counsel for accused.
Shri Surender Singh( A4) was working as driver with A2 and had prepared false documents showing transportation of fertilizer through nonexisting transport companies. He is also alleged to have prepared false documents showing cash sale of fertilizers and attested the forged signatures of Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2) as Vijay Kumar, Prop. of M/s Vijay Trading Co., Gurudaspur.
11. Shri Ranveer Seth ( A5) was working as Technical Officer, DIC, Amritsar and it is alleged that he illegally forwarded the bogus subsidy claims of the accused firm form December, 1980 to July, 1981 in criminal conspiracy with Shri P.K. Parmar ( A2).
12. Shri Daulat Singh ( A6) while working as Industrial Promotion Officer, DIC, Amritsar is alleged to have falsely verified bogus subsidy claims of accused firm up to the period when the constitution of the said firm was changed to M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 12/55
13. Sh. R.C Nirmal ( A7) while working Asstt. Manager, Industry, DIC, Amritsar had also countersigned and verified bogus subsidy claims of the accused firm and also fraudulently issued technical report in respect of the accused company to enable the said company to obtain various loans from PNB, Katra Ahluwalia, Amritsar. The GEQD opinion on the writing of ( A7) is in positive.
14. Shri Pratap Narain( A8) while working as Executive Director of FICC, R.K. Puram, New Delhi is alleged to have fraudulently ordered for processing of bogus subsidy claims for the month of December, 1980 to July, 1981 inspite of the fact that the verification regarding the genuineness of the claims had not been done by authorized officers, while chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar was regularly informing to the FICC, R.K. Puram, New Delhi that the accused firm was not manufacturing and selling any SSP fertilizer and submitting bogus claims for obtaining subsidy. The claims containing bogus verification were personally delivered to Sh. Pratap Narain ( A8) on 29.10.82 and on the same day the claims CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 13/55 were processed and the cheque was drawn and delivered to Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2).
15. Shri Anil Sood ( A9) while working as Jr. Accounts Officer, FICC during September, 1981 to September, 1985 had processed the subsidy claims bills of the accused firm and proposed for admitting the same inspite of the fact that the said claim had not been verified by the proper and competent authority , i.e. Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar. Further, he also accompanied Sh. S.D. Raj ( A10) and Sh. Y.R. Khattar (A13) during inspection of the accused firm. Shri sood also had written personal letters to Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2) relating to payment of said subsidy claims which showed his active collusion with Parmar( A2). The said letter written by Sh. Anil Sood ( A9) was later on recovered during search in this case from the premises of accused Sh. Parmar.
16. Sh. S.D. Raj ( A10) was working as Accounts Officer, FICC, since October, 1981 to September, 1985. It is alleged that he was fixing exworks prices of various units including accused CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 14/55 firm. He was deputed for inspection of unit of accused firm during March, 1983 along with Sh.Anil Sood and submitted false inspection report on 02.05.1983.
17. Sh. Mahender Singh Sandhu ( A11) was working as Junior Accounts Officer, FICC during April, 1981 to May, 1985. It is alleged that he accompanied Sh. Vinod Chandra ( A12) and made inspection of the unit during December, 1983 and submitted false report.
18. Shri Vinod Chandra ( A12) who was working as Junior Accounts officer, FICC, had also processed and recommended bogus subsidy claims of accused firm. He has also accompanied inspection team headed by Sh. M.S. Sandhu ( A11) for which false report had been submitted.
19. Sh. Y.R Kathar( A13) was working as Accounts Officer, FICC during 01.05.82 to April, 1986. It is alleged that besides, passing the bogus susbsidy claims of the accused firm, he had also inspected the unit during March, 1985 along with Sh. Anil CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 15/55 sood and submitted false report regarding correctness of subsidy claims.
20. Sh. S.C. Singla( A14) was working as Accounts Officer, FICC on deputation during May, 1981 to May, 1985. While working as such, he scrutinized /processed bogus subsidy claims of the accused firm against the existing instruction that the claims should be routed through Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar.
21. Sh. R.K. Bhambi( A15) was working as Jr. Accounts officer, FICC during July, 1985 to June, 1987 and processed the bogus subsidy claims of the accused firm. He was also a member of the inspection team during February, 1987 for which false report was submitted by Sh. Ramsingh( A16). Entries in the diaries of the accused P.K. Parmar and also slips recovered during investigation showed that Sh. Bhambi and Ram Singh were in active collusion with Sh. P.K. Parmar.
22. Sh. Ram Singh ( A16) was working as Accounts Officer, FICC during April, 1986 to April, 1989. He had, besides passing CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 16/55 the bogus subsidy claims of the accused firm, submitted false inspection report for the period 198485 and 198586.
23. Sh. Prem Singh ( A17) was working as Jt. Director/ Director, F& A, FICC, during January, 1986 to May, 1991. It is alleged that he submitted false inspection report stating that the unit was manufacturing and selling SSP fertilizer and maintaining proper books of accounts and other records. The inspection was made in presence of officers of Agricultural Department, Amritsar who during investigation deposed that the unit was not manufacturing and selling any fertilizer.
24. Shri Pritam Singh ( A18) was working as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh and was instrumental in getting the bogus subsidy claims of the accused firm for December, 1980 to July, 1981 cleared and issued the letter dated 28.10.82 to the Executive Director, FICC asking him to clear the bills. It is alleged that he was not authorized to make the endorsement on the said claims.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 17/55
25. Shri S.K. Sarda ( A19) while working as an Officer, PNB, Amritsar allegedly verified the opening of current accounts in the name of M/s B.K. Enterprises and M/s Vijay Trading Co. Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2) is alleged to have signed in an assumed name as Anil Mathur & Vijay Kumar respectively for the said accounts. The account opening forms of the said accounts had been filled in by Sh. S.K. Sarda. He is also alleged to have introduced a large number of F.D. Accounts in Chaitanya Gramin Vikas Bank, Meham belonging to Sh. P.K. Parmar ( A2) and his family members and was also instrumental in opening the account of M/s Shiv Ply Fabric company in PNB, Meham Mandi Branch, Amritsar of accused P.K. Parmar ( A2).
26. Sh. G.S. Sachdeva(A20) was working as Manager, PNB Amritsar during 1983 to November, 1985 and is alleged to be instrumental in opening of bank account by Shri P.K. Parmar in the name of M/s B.K. Enterprises and M/s Vijay Trading Co. He also passed the vouchers relating to the transfer of amounts from one account to another account, i.e. B.K. Enterprises, Vijay Trading Co. to Punjab Phosphate & Vice Versa.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 18/55
27. Shri Anoop Kumar Arora( A23) proprietor of M/s Pawan Electronics had introduced two bank accounts namely that of M/s Vijay Trading Co. in the fictitious name of Vijay Kumar and that of M/s B.K. Enterprises at the instance of Sh. S.K. Sarda ( A19), Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Amritsar wherein Sh. P.K. Parmar(A2) in the aforesaid criminal conspiracy had signed in assumed names as Vijay Kumar and Anil Mathur.
28. Smt. Savita Parmar( A21) W/o Sh. P.K. Parmar (A2) opened a current account in the name of M/s Sahdev Acid & Chemicals in Punjab Cooperative Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar, as proprietor in the assumed name of Ramesh Kumar. The said firm " Sahdev Acid & chemicals" had been fraudulently shown as supplier of Sulphuric Acid to the accused company ( A1 & A22). All the bank transaction from the said account is alleged to be fraudulently under her signature as Ramesh Kumar. During investigation M/s Sahdev Acid & Chemicals was also found to be nonexisting and fictitious firm. It is further the case of prosecution that GEQD has given positive opinion on the signature as CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 19/55 Ramesh Kumar as that of Smt. Savita Parmar( A21). It is also alleged that Smt. Savita Parmar had fraudulently withdrawn money of subsidy claims from different banks and concealed the same by hiring lockers and some amount of subsidy claims was also concealed in her house at Rohini which was recovered during the course of investigation.
29. It may also be appropriate to mention that investigation also revealed that Sh. P.K. Parmar had opened following bogus bank accounts in the names of different concern including nonexiting one for the purpose of showing supply of raw materials falsely: Rock Phosphate
a) In the name of M/s B.K. Enterprises with Punjab National Bank, Katra Ahluwalia, Amritsar.
b) In the name of M/s Sadhna Enterprises with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
c) In the name of M/s MPSMM Corporation, Punjab
National Bank, batala Road, Amritsar.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 20/55
SULPHURIC ACID
a) In the name of Vishkarma Chemicals with Punjab Co
operative Bank Ltd., South Extension, New Delhi.
b) In the name of Vishkarma Chemicals with State Bank of Indore, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
c) In the name of Vishkarma Chemicals with Punjab National Bank, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
d) In the name of Shadev Acid and Chemicals with
Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amritsar.
HDPE BAGS:
a) In the name of Shiva Ploy Fabric Company with Punjab
National Bank, Mewa Mandi, Amritsar.
DISTRIBUTORS ACCOUNT
a) In the name of Vijay Trading Company with Punjab
National Bank, Katra Ahluwalia, Amritsar.
It is also alleged that Sh. P.K. Parmar opened bogus accounts in Punjab National Bank, Katra Ahluwalia, Amritsar in the CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 21/55 names of M/s Vijay Trading Company, falsely showing him as distributor of the fertilizer.
30. I have heard counsels for the accused at length and also perused the voluminous trunk load of documents which were referred during the course of arguments. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of some of the accused which are also briefly referred.
(A)Contentions on behalf of accused No. 8 Pratap Narayan
(i) Sh. Satish Tamta, Counsel for the accused filed written submissions on record. It is contended that accused No. 8 was working as Executive Director in FICC and the role of the accused was only in marking the letter from Deputy Secretary from Govt. of Punjab to the Joint Director ( F & A, FICC) the concerned officer for processing subsidy claims in the discharge of his official duties. It is contended that the prosecution of accused is illegal for want of sanction U/s 195/197 Cr. P.C. Reliance is further placed on ( 2009) CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 22/55 6 Supreme Court Cases 372.
(ii) It is further contended that there is no evidence to establish conspiracy or agreement between accused No. 8 and the beneficiary.
(iii) It is also submitted that provision of Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted against the accused as the ingredients and the offence to constitute criminal misconduct on the part of the accused No. 8 are not made out.
(iv) It is also vehemently argued that there is no evidence that Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar was informing FICC that accused firm was not manufacturing and selling in SSP Fertilizer and submitting bogus claims for subsidy.
(v) It is submitted that the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar had rather intimated the Director of Agricultural in his letter No. 2778 dated 28.08.90 that the manufacturing concern is actually in production. Communication vide letter dated 26.05.81 and March, 1981 by the Director of Agricultural in this regard is further relied CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 23/55 and the said facts are stated to have been further brought out in letter dated 03.07.82 from FICC to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab
(vi) It is also submitted that there is no evidence that claims of the accused firm for subsidy were processed ignoring the report of Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar about the firm not manufacturing/supply SSP fertilizer.
(vii) It is further submitted on behalf of the accused that payment procedure laid down by the Government were followed by FICC and reliance is also placed upon on OM dated 06.12.96 from Department of Fertilizers, Govt. of India, CVI.
(viii) It is also submitted that the prosecution suppressed the fact that the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Agricultural, Govt. of Punjab vide his letter dated 28.10.82 requested release of subsidy of the accused firm which had been duly certified by the officers of the industries department.
(ix) It is also urged that an unwarranted inference was drawn by the prosecution against accused No. 8 merely for prompt payment of subsidy dues though the same was CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 24/55 the general norm and there was no reason to delay the payment. The letter is stated to have been merely marked to Joint Director F & A for further processing and the same was processed in Account Section and final payment approved by JDF without the papers being put up back to the accused No. 8. It is also pointed out that the concerned JD ( F & A) who had passed the payment had not been prosecuted.
(x) The following authorities were also relied upon by the counsel for accused All India Appeals Reporter (Criminal) State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra 2004 AIAR (Criminal) 378.
(B) Contentions raised on behalf of accused Pritam Singh.
It was contended that accused was working as Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh during 198283 and the file pertaining to correspondence exchanged with FICC and other departments was not seized by the investigating agency to assess the limited role that the accused had been working under the supervision of senior CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 25/55 officers in the secretariat. He urged that the file is handled at various levels but even the Secretary, Agriculture, was not examined and he had merely carried out the orders of the superior officers. It is submitted that there is no evidence of conspiracy and the documents had been processed in the course of official duties. It was also contended that the statement of accused was also recorded and cited as witness as PW128 in the list of witnesses. It was further urged that no sanction had been obtained by CBI u/s 197 Cr.P.C. which is required in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also urged that the impugned subsidy bills were clarified as correct by the Assistant Project Officers as per orders of CAO, Amritsar earlier. It was also submitted that since there were complaints against CAO Amritsar, the accused firm got the bills forwarded to FICC through GMDIC, Amritsar but the bills were not accepted for payment by FICC and the case was referred to the Punjab Govt. through Chief Secretary. It was urged that a thorough inquiry was held at level of Joint Director, Agriculture and the inquiry report was against CAO, Amritsar. Reliance was also placed upon 2003(3) RCR Criminal 517 Bramdev Vs. State of Punjab.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 26/55 (C) Contentions made on behalf of accused Ranveer Seth (DIC) by Sh. Rajpal Singh, Adv.
Written submissions were filed on behalf of the accused. It is contended that accused retired from the State Government on 03.05.85 and had forwarded the bills on 03.01.83, 08.03.83 and 19.04.83 in accordance with the established procedure during his posting at DIC. It is contended that the verification report on behalf of units was signed by Chartered Accountant and accused no.5 had worked like a post office to forward the verified and signed bill to Govt. of India. It is further contended that no sanction had been obtained by prosecution as required u/s 197 Cr.P.C.
(D) Contentions raised on behalf of accused A6 Daulat Singh (DIC).
Written submissions were filed on behalf of A6 Daulat Singh. It was contended that the subsidy claim verified by the accused was made as per record produced by the firm/company produced before A6. It was further submitted that the said CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 27/55 verification report was declined by FICC on the basis of contradictory report of Department of Agriculture, Punjab and hence the FICC had approached Chief Secretary for clarification. It is urged that since the subsidy claim was released to the firm on the basis of confirmation by Sh. Pritam Singh, Dy. Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab in terms of letter dated 28.10.82, the report given by Daulat Singh A6 cannot be considered to be false.
(E) Contentions raised on behalf of accused R.C. Nirmal (DIC).
Written submissions were also filed on behalf of accused. It was urged that accused joined DIC, Amritsar on deputation from Punjab National Bank on 05.02.82 and was relieved on 29.08.86. It is urged that SSI registration certificate was granted to the firm on 10.07.80 and Dealers Registration Certificate was issued to the firm before his joining the DIC. It is further submitted that accused did not recommend for subsidy but had countersigned the sale/production returns and the verification of bills/production returns was done by Industrial Promotion Officer Daulat Singh CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 28/55 from DIC, Amritsar. It is also contended that verification of bills/record for the period December 1980 to July 1981 was sent on 11.06.82 to FICC as per guidelines of letter no. 4(27)/80 FDA1 dated 29.09.80 by Govt. of India, Ministry of Petroleum Chemical and Fertiliser. It is also claimed that the release of subsidy for aforesaid period was on the basis of letter dated 28.10.82 issued by Dy. Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Deptt. of Agriculture and as such accused cannot be held liable.
(F) Contentions on behalf of accused M.S. Sandhu (FICC) by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Adv.
Counsel for the accused also filed written submissions on record and the same may be briefly referred.
(i) Counsel for the accused submitted that the procedure laid down in letter dated 29.09.80 had been duly followed. It was further urged that inspection of the records of the company Punjab Phosphate & Pesticides, Amritsar pertaining to the financial year 198283 was conducted along with Junior Accounts Officers in accordance with instructions on the basis of available record which were produced. The allegations of submitting a false report in lieu of cheque of Rs.5,000/ were CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 29/55 further denied on various counts. It was further contended that accused was on deputation from 01.04.81 to 31.03.85 in FICC and retired from service from 30.11.88. The case is further challanged for want to prosecution U/S 197 Cr. P.C. Counsel for the accused also referred to State of M.P Vs. Sheetla Sahai & Ors. VI ( 2009) SLT 535 and Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2008 ( 2) JCC 1337.
(G) Contentions made on behalf of accused Prem Singh (FICC) by Sh. Jitender Kumar, Adv.
Written submissions were also filed on behalf of accused. It was urged that accused was posted as Joint Director / Director (F & A), FICC after joining on deputation from Indian Defence Accounts Service. He had conducted inspection on 18.09.86 and submitted a report dated 21.09.86 which was seen and approved by Head of Department, i.e. ED, FICC. The said report is stated to have been given as per ground position revealed on inspection and since the unit had been getting subsidy for number of years before 18.09.86 and as ECA allocation for supply of SSP planwise was given for more than 7 years by Department of CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 30/55 Agriculture, Govt. of India which were recommended by Agriculture Department of Punjab. It is claimed that accused is victim of lopsided investigation and the sanction was obtained after filing of chargesheet. The sanction is further claimed to be faulty as no sanction had been obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was reiterated that the inspection report given by him was earlier confirmed by officers of Punjab Government who had conducted inspection of the unit on 08.08.80, 02.12.81, 14.09.82 and 01.07.83. It was also urged that inspection by him was only on the basis of records / documents maintained by the unit as distinct from technical inspection. It was also urged that the officers / officials who authorised and disbursed subsidy payments were let off by Department of Personnel and Training on 18.11.96.
(H) Contentions raised on behalf of accused Y. R. Khattar (FICC).
Written submissions were filed twice on behalf of accused. It was contended that the role of the accused was only of checking the bills sent by Junior Accounts Officer and thereafter, forwarding it CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 31/55 to the higher authority i.e. Joint Director/Director of Accounts for approval of payment of the subsidy claimed by the unit. It is urged that the verification was only confined to see that the bills are on the prescribed proforma duly certified by the statutory auditor and if the calculations were correct. It is further contended that in terms of prosecution document D30 dated 24.01.1985 issued by Sh.D. Saroop the then Director F&A of FICC, he went to the office of the accused company with Anil Sood the then Officer to inspect the record of accused no.1 during 2022.03.1985 in order to verify the SSP Subsidy Paid during 19831984. It is contended that the officials were required only to check the record and not the actual production activity at the factory. It is also submitted that the other officers similarly placed who had dealt with the payments of subsidiary had not been charge sheeted by the CBI. Reliance was also placed upon (i) Judgement 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 411 (ii) AIR 1992 SC State Vs. Bhajan Lal, page no. 604, (iii)AIR 1998 SC, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 712.
In further written submissions filed on behalf of accused, the following authorities were further relied upon in support of submissions:
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 32/55
(i) 2004(1) JCC 218, (ii) 120(2005) DLT 324, (iii) 1995(3) CC Cases 51 Supreme Court, (iv) 1995 JCC 546, (v) 1998 (1) JCC 73, (vi) 2003(3) CC Cases SC 206, (vii) 2007(4) CC Cases HC 22, (viii) 2007 (4) CC Cases HC 344, (ix) 2007(4) CC Cases HC 392, (X) 1996(3) CC Cases 130 SC, (XI) 1996 (3) CC Cases 212 HC, (XII) 1996 (3) CC Cases 352 (HC), (XIII) 2008 (8) CC Cases HC 205, (XIV) 2005(2) CC Cases HC 209, (XV) 2004(8) CC Cases SC 375, (XVI) 54(1994) DLT 20, (XVII) 1993(2001) DLT 428, (XVIII) AIR 2000 SC 2474, (XIX) 66 (1997) DLT 618, (XX) 116 (2005) DLT 698, (XXI) Recent C.R.S.C. Page 411, AIR 1992 SC State versus Bhajan Lal, (XXII) AIR 1988 S.C. Page 709, (XXIII) 2000(1) CCC HC 267, (XXIV) 119 (2005) DLT 433, (XXV) 2006(1) JCC 309, (XXVI) 1995 Crl.J 3428 (I)Contentions made on behalf of accused Ram Singh (FICC) Written submissions were filed on behalf of accused. It was urged that the accused joined the FICC on 22.04.86 during last year of his service as Accounts Officer on deputation. It is contended that under the prescribed procedure the subsidy claim was examined / processed by three persons i.e. Junior Accounts CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 33/55 Officer, Accounts Officer and Joint Director/Director in FICC office. It is urged that CBI did not chargesheet some of the FICC officials similarly placed though the claims were also examined by them over the period 19831987.
It is also urged that the CBI recommended only a regular departmental action or major penalty against B.S. Negi, D.C. Dabral, H.B. Guwlalni, Satyaprakash, (Junior Accounts Officers) and K. Narayan, Accounts Officer, though they were also severally and jointly involved as subordinate officers in making payments. It is further urged that Department of Fertilizers examined the matter and stated in their OM no. 1/1/93 VIG dated 06.12.96 to drop the chargesheet as it was not specified in the procedure about the authority of the State Govt. which had to countersign the subsidy claims before submissions to FICC for payment and the FICC officials had passed the claims as per procedure. Further it was decided to disagree with advice of CVC as recommended by CBI for initiation of regular departmental action against the above officials.
It is urged that the inspection report for the year 198485 and 198586 submitted by accused had been wrongly treated as CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 34/55 incorrect as the inspection had to be conducted only of office records and not technically on functional activities of the company.
(I)Contentions made on behalf of accused Sant Kumar Sharda and Gurjeet Singh Sachdeva (Punjab National Bank) by Sh. Rajesh Harnal, Adv.
Written submissions were also filed on behalf of accused. The prosecution case is challenged by counsel for accused A19 S.K. Sharda on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the account opening form was filled by accused no.19 S.K. Sharda. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that the account opening form were in handwriting of A19 S.K. Sharda, there was no evidence to show that the signatures of the person opening the account in name of Vijay Trading Company and B.K. Enterprises were made by the alleged signatory in his presence. It is also contended that the duty of the accused no. 19 S.K. Sharda was to generate deposits and accounts for the bank and merely knowing P.K. Parmar may not be sufficient link the accused to CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 35/55 conspiracy as the subsidy was being claimed by the accused since 1982. In the aforesaid context, statement of PW120 Vijay Kumar, PW150 Avinash Pahwa, PW60 R.K. Kochar (PNB) and PW104 Sh. Yudhistar Raj Soni (PNB) is relied. It is also contended that PW19 S.K. Sharda was not posted at Meham and as such, the knowledge imputed to the accused for opening of other accounts cannot be imputed. Reliance was also placed upon AIR 2002 Supreme Court 564, 2002(98) DLT 206:2002(4) AD (Delhi) titled Devi Dutt Malhotra Vs. State of Delhi, 2002(95) DLT 623 titled Sushil Ansal Vs. State, VI (2000) SLT 819 titled Mr. K. Rama Krishna & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & another.
So far as accused G.S. Sachdeva (A20) is concerned, it was denied that he was working as Accountant at PNB, Katra Ahluwalia Branch, Amritsar wherein the aforesaid forged accounts were opened in the name of M/s. B.K. Enterprises and M/s Vijay Trading Company by P.K. Parmar under assumed names. It was contended that the accused was not instrumental in any manner in opening of the account and the responsibility lies with the Manager and on Assistant Manager. It was also CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 36/55 contended that the accounts had been opened with proper introduction and there is no reason to presume that the accused were in conspiracy with P.K. Parmar. It was further contended that the procedural formalities were duly completed and the bank was in no manner concerned to investigate the source of customer's income or the purpose for which the accounts were opened. The vouchers issued in respect of said accounts are further stated to have been passed in routine course of official duties of banking business.
(J) Contentions made on behalf of accused Vinod Chandra (FICC) and Rajesh Kumar Bhambi (FICC) by Sh. S.K. Sood, Adv.
Counsel for accused contended that accused had only processed the bills in routine course and did not submit any inspection report. It was further urged that no sanction had been obtained u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and as such the proceedings could not be continued against the public servants. It was also contended that the other officers who had dealt with the bills and were similarly placed were not chargesheeted by CBI and accused being similarly placed be discharged. It was also contended that CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 37/55 the bills were processed as per procedure and had been certified by the Chartered Accountant engaged by the units who had not been chargesheeted by the prosecution.
31. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the accused and relied upon the evidence collected during the course of investigation.
32. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
"There is no dispute as to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the the point of charge in the various judgments relied upon by the counsel for accused."
At the same time it is well settled that a criminal court is required to write a order showing detailed reasons only if the accused is discharged or it is found that the charge leveled against him by the prosecution is groundless. If the court comes to a conclusion on the basis of material placed before it that the charge is to be framed, this can be ordered without detailed reasons being recorded (Kanti Bhandra Shah & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal, JT 2000(1) SC 134).
Observations in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 38/55 Singh: 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal Soni 2000(20) JCC(SC) 676 may also be referred in this context, which lays down that at the stage of charge the truth, veracity and facts of the prosecution evidence is not to be meticulously judged, nor any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and it is not obligatory on the court to consider the evidence relied upon by both sides in detail or to weigh it in a sensitive balance.
It is also well settled that the documents relied upon by the accused persons are not to be considered at the stage of consideration of charge as they are required to be proved by them in defence during trial.
In the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 IV AD (S.C.) 94, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed ".... The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence". CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 39/55 In my opinion, the basic time tested principle is that the court has to form a reasonable opinion about existence of grave suspicion regarding commission of offence and for the aforesaid purpose the court may sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out.
33. The case of the CBI on investigation is that false bills were prepared on behalf of M/s Punjab Fertilisers and Pesticides Industries Pvt. Ltd. later on changed to M/s Punjab Phosphate & Pvt. Ltd., to claim the subsidy though the fertilizer (SSP) was not manufactured and supplied as claimed. For aforesaid purpose, different bank accounts were opened and other fake bills were unearthed during investigation. The officials of FICC who cleared the aforesaid bills or dealt with the same (A8 to A17), at one or the other stage constitute one set of accused.
M/s Punjab Fertilisers and Pesticides Industries Pvt. Ltd. (A22) later on changed to M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd. (A1), Prem Kr. Parmar (A2, deceased), Lalit Kumar Parmar (A3), Savita Parmar (A5), Surender Singh (PO employed by Prem Kr. Parmar for purpose of claiming false subsidy) constitute another set of accused.
A5 Ranvir Seth, A6 Daulat Singh and A7 R.C. Nirmal from CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 40/55 DIC form the third set of accused who had verified the bills or inspected the records of the units in question.
Accused Pritam Singh, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture constitutes another set of accused and had inspected the unit as well forwarded letter dated 28.10.82 to FICC on the basis of which the bills were processed by FICC.
A19 Sant Kumar Sharda and A20 Gurjeet Singh Sachdeva (serving at Punjab National Bank) constitute another set of accused who are alleged to be instrumental in opening of fake accounts in name of B.K. Enterprises and Vijay Trading Company by P.K. Parmar. A23 Anoop Kr. Arora (deceased) was the introducer of one of the fictitious accounts.
34. In the aforesaid context, it may also be appropriate to refer to statement of PW18 Sh. Sri Prakash, Director, Inputs, FICC, Department of Fertilisers which clarifies the nature of production with reference to single super phosphate (a low nutrient fertiliser) which is manufactured by 7075 units in the country and the main raw material for SSP (single super phosphate) is rock phosphate and involves mixing with sulphuric acid. The major source of CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 41/55 rock phosphate is Rajasthan State Mineral and Metal Ltd., RSMDC and is mined only by Government agencies. Some rock phosphate is also stated to be mined by Government agencies at (MP), UP and also imported by MMTC. The fertiliser is distributed in accordance with supply plan made by Government of Agriculture and Cooperation under Essential Commodities Act for both rabi and kharif season. The assessment of statewise requirement is made in Zonal Conferences held twice in a year. The above reference is material to assess the subsidy claims made on behalf of accused (Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd and Punjab Fertiliser and Pesticides) since it is pointed out by prosecution that the raw material necessary for production of SSP was never procured to the extent of subsidy claimed by the units.
35. It may be further noted that the procedure for submission, scrutiny and payment of subsidy bills was laid down vide circular dated 29.09.80 and 5.8.82 issued by Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Fertilisers and the prosecution claims that it was CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 42/55 flouted for releasing the payment to accused firms namely M/s Punjab Fertilisers and Pesticides and Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd.
The thrust of the prosecution case is that the payment was to be released only on verification of the bills by the Chief Agricultural Officer but the same were processed by FICC on unauthorised verification by officials of DIC namely A5, A6 & A7.
A bare perusal of circular dated 29.09.1980 with reference to withdrawal of excise on single super phosphate w.e.f 07.06.80 and laying down the revised procedure for processing the bills as issued by the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemical and Fertilisers reflects in para V that in addition to the certification by the State Government the certificates to be appended alongwith the claim for the subsidies were to be signed by the Chartered Accountant appointed by such companies and the bills were to be submitted through the State Government. The certification / verification through the State Government i.e. The Department of Agriculture appears to be required for processing of the bills in view of communications exchanged between FICC and CAO. The stand of accused that verification through DIC and further processing of bills through FICC was in accordance with rules as per subsequent CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 43/55 clarifications issued in this regard can only be assessed after the evidence of the concerned witnesses is led on record. Even the verification of the bills by officials of DIC in the absence of production (to the extent of subsidy claimed) and supply of SSP by the concerned units throws doubt, if the bills were bonafidely verified. The accused cannot be given benefit at this stage merely because the Chartered Accountant who had verified the bills has been wrongly left out to be chargesheeted by the prosecution. The IO of the case who is liable to explain the same is stated to have expired.
36. The communication exchanged between the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab to whom the bills were initially submitted for claim of subsidy and Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar alongwith Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture may also be noticed in this regard which points out that the production of SSP by Punjab Fertilizers and Pesticides was doubtful right from the inception. The bills were verified by DIC and processed by FICC despite specific objections by CAO. The same were required to be appropriately looked into CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 44/55 to assess if the production and supply of SSP was made by the units as claimed. At this stage it is difficult to accept that the verification was made bonafidely by officials of DIC only on basis of available records produced by the units. The CAO had pointed out glaring anomalies qua the bills and the same could not be overlooked without adequate explanation by DIC or FICC.
37. It was revealed during investigation (and as also referred in the various sanction orders) in the aforesaid context that M/s Punjab Fertilisers & Pesticides had sent letter dated 09.05.1980 signed by the said Sh. P.K. Parmar to the Government of India for ECA and in turn the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation sent letter dated 05.06.1980 under the signature of Sh. Deen Dayal, Under Secretary to the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh, to verify whether the unit was producing SSP and if it was in a position to supply fertiliser to Punjab regularly and a copy of the said letter was also endorsed to the Chief Agricultural Officer (CAO), Amritsar. In response to the said letter, the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab had sent letter dated 08.08.1980 that the Directorate had no CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 45/55 information about the installation of any super phosphate plant in Punjab State.
Though in the meanwhile on the basis of the DRC (Dealers Registration Certificate), manufacturing license issued by the Govt. of India, Industries Department vide letter no. 112/79STU including the representation made, Sh. P.K. Parmar had obtained letter dtd. 28.08.1980 from the CAO, Amritsar, to the effect that the unit was producing fertilisers and it had manufactured 19 tons of SSP and 16 tons were under treatment and it had the capacity to produce 15 tons SSP and 16 tons were under treatment and it had the capacity to produce 15 tons SSP per day. However in the said letter it was also mentioned that the unit had not done any sale and as soon as the material packed, marked and marketed, the sample would be drawn in terms of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.
In the aforesaid background Sh. Deen Dayal, Secretary issued ECA dated 29.11.80 allowing unit to supply 200 tons of P2O5 and 1200 tons of SSP to State of Punjab during Rabi 198081.
The communications referred above reflects that there was no sale or supply of SSP till the time the ECA was allocated. CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 46/55 Thereafter M/s Punjab Fertilisers and Pesticides Industry submitted subsidy claims for the period from December, 1980 to July, 1981 amounting to Rs. 3,59,400/ signed by the said Sh. P.K. Parmar to the office of the CAO, Amritsar sometime in September, 1981 and the bills were returned by the said office to the said unit asking it to supply information regarding manufacture and despatch of SSP, GR No. and truck no. but to no effect. The result was that the said office sent letter dtd. 31.10.1981 to Sh. Deen Dayal, Under Secretary to the effect that the unit had not submitted any reports since the inception of the industry.
It may be noticed that prior to the said letter, Sh. Deen Dayal had issued letter dated 22.10.1981 to the Jt. Director of Agriculture Govt. of Punjab, requesting him to issue suitable instructions to the CAO, Amritsar so that unit was able to claim subsidy from the Govt. of India and was able to start the production. On receiving the said letter P.K. Parmar had requested the CAO, Amritsar vide letter dtd. 23.10.1981 for the disposal of pending subsidy bills but the said office had informed the Directorate vide letter dt. CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 47/55 03.11.1981 that the unit had not furnished the information called for regarding manufacture and despatch of SSP with bill, GR Number, truck number and the name of the parties to whom the SSP was despatched and accordingly had requested the Directorate to depute some officers to verify the facts. Further under intimation to the said Directorate, the office of the CAO issued another letter dtd. 16.11.81 to the said unit to furnish the required particulars so that the bills could be verified. However the unit had furnished photocopies of certain GRs without containing the name of the parties to whom the fertilisers were purportedly despatched and the result was that the said office of the CAO had informed the matter to the Directorate. The said office of the CAO had issued another letter dtd. 25.11.1981 asking the said unit/company to furnish the information by 04.12.1981 failing which it was to be presumed that the unit had not manufactured any SSP and the bills submitted for subsidy claims were bogus and the matter was to be reported to the higher authorities.
It may be noticed that Sh. P.K. Parmar or the unit M/s Punjab Fertilisers & Pesticides industry did not furnish any information regarding sale or stock movement of SSP to the said office as a CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 48/55 result of which the said office had submitted report dated 2.3.1982 to the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab, intimating that the unit had been directed to furnish list of firms/dealers with addresses with whom produce of fertiliser was deposited but to no effect. Also the said office had called for information relating to the names of the firms from its counterparts in the districts of Ropar and Gurdaspur and had issued letter dtd. 16.2.1982 to the said unit to furnish details of SSP supplied to the firms to whom DRCs were issued by the Ropar and Gurdaspur Districts, but to no effect. As such the said office had concluded that the unit had not manufactured any quantity of super phosphate and had submitted false bills to claim subsidy as a result of which the said office had issued notice to the accused unit for showing cause as to why the DRC (Dealers Registration Certificate) be not withdrawn but no reply was received by the said office from the said unit.
Also, the verification conducted by the office of the said CAO revealed that the CAOs of the various districts had reported that the DRC holders viz. M/s Bhasin Rice & General Mills, M/s Bimpl Roy, Kurali road, M/s Shiv Shakti Commission, Agent, M/s Munshi Ram Brij Mohan and M/s Bhasin Khad Depot from the districts of CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 49/55 Gurdaspur and Ropar) had not purchased SSP manufactured/supplied by the unit M/s Punjab Fertiliser & Pesticides Industry. Similarly, the CAO s of other districts, viz. Patiala, Kapurthala, Sngrur, Ludhiana, Faridkot and Bhatinda, had sent letters to the CAO, Amritsar that their office had not entered into sale of SSP manufactured/supplied by the said unit M/s Punjab Fertilisers & Pesticides Industry.
The CAO, Amritsar had issued a showcause notice to the said unit for violating the terms and conditions of the DRC and clause 20 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 yet the said unit did not submit any showcause on or before 30.03.1982 as directed or even on or before the extended dated 21.4.1982 nor the said unit filed any appearance, as a result of which DRC in favour of the said unit was cancelled.
The above references in the various sanction orders and as revealed in investigation depict that manufacture and supply by M/s Punjab Fertilisers & Pesticides right from inception was doubtful and it can only be assessed in evidence to be led on record if the unit had actually undertaken the manufacture and supply of SSP as claimed in subsidy bills.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 50/55 The said fact is also supported by the statement of witnesses PW102 Charan Das and PW103 Chandermohan who stated that no manufacturing activity was seen in the shed taken on rent by P.K. Parmar.
38. In the aforesaid context, it may also be noticed that the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab had written letter dtd. 11.06.1982 to the then Director (F & A), FICC, New Delhi, presently Principal Director, CAG's Office, New Delhi, to the effect that the investigation carried out by the CAO, Amritsar had shown that the said unit had not manufactured any SSP and had submitted false bills just to claim subsidy. It was also informed that an issue was raised in the March Session of the Punjab Assembly and the DRC of the Company for sale of SSP had been cancelled by the CAO, Amritsar under Clause 17 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957. In view of above, FICC clearly had the information that the subsidy bills claimed by the Punjab Fertilizers and Pesticides were not found to be satisfactory by CAO, Amritsar.
Relying upon the same even the subsidy bills forwarded to the FICC vide DIC's letter dtd. 11.06.1982 for payment were returned CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 51/55 by the FICC vide letter dated 26.06.1982 to the said unit stating that they had received reports from the CAO, Amritsar including the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab that the claims so submitted by the said unit were false as the unit had not manufactured SSP fertilisers.
The clearance of the bills subsequently on the basis of letter dated 28.10.82 issued by Sh. Pritam Singh, (since retired) functioning as Dy. Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Deptt. Of Agriculture on verification by the officers of DIC throws grave suspicion if the clearance of the subsidy bills by FICC was bonafide.
The said letter dtd. 28.10.1982 was seen by Sh. Pratap Narain (A8) who in turn had marked the papers to the then Jt. Director (P & A), FICC (Sh. D. Swaroop) for processing and it was Sh. Anil Sood, the then Jr. Accounts Office (JAO), FICC, who had examined bills and found the same to be in order and accordingly put up the bills in the file with his notings dtd. 29.10.1982 and thereafter it was Sh. S.D. Raj, the then AO, FICC, who had approved the proposal of said Sh. Anil Sood and had marked the file to the then JD (F & A) for approval.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 52/55
39. The brief details of the bills alongwith the officers who had dealt with the same for the relevant period may be detailed to indicate the role of respective officers from FICC and DIC as all these bills are alleged to have been passed though there was no production of SSP by the concerned unit as claimed. The same have also been referred in various sanction orders and as revealed during investigation.
It was revealed during investigation that Sh. P.K. Parmar had subsequently submitted subsidy bills amounting to Rs. 62068/ for the months November, 1982 and December, 1982 on 06.12.82 and 06.01.83 duly signed by him and Sh. Sunil Khanna, Chartered Accountant. These bills contained the signatures of Sh. Ranveer Seth, the then Technical Officer, DIC, Amritsar and the said Sh. Daulat Singh and this time it was the said Sh. Ranveer Seth who had forwarded bills to the FICC for payment. Sh. Anil Sood and S.D. Raj had examined and processed such bills in FICC for payment to the extent of Rs. 46,288/ .
Similarly Sh. P.K. Parmar had submitted such bills for the months January, 1983 and February, 1983 signed by the said S/Sh. P.K. Parmar and Sunil Khanna, Ranveer Seth and Daulat CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 53/55 Singh and got the same forwarded to FICC for payment by the said Sh. Ranveer Seth. Also, it is alleged that this time again it was Sh. Anil Sood, S.D. Raj, S.C. Singla who had dealt with such bills and recommended for payment. Further it is alleged that necessary payment draft for sum of Rs. 65,120/ was obtained by the said Sh. P.K. Parmar on 27.05.1983.
Sh. P.K. Parmar had further submitted bills amounting to Rs. 29,920/ for the month of March, 1983 signed by the said Sh. P.K. Parmar, Sunil Khanna, Ranveer Seth and Daulat Singh and got the same forwarded to FICC for payment by Sh. Ranveer Seth vide letter dtd. 19.04.1983. Also it is alleged that this time it was Sh. S.C. Singla who had examined the bill and had recommended for payment.
The periodical inspection for the period 1980/81, 198182 of the companies viz. M/s. Punjab Fertiliser and pesticides and M/s. Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd., was carried out from 21 to 23 rd March, 1983 by Sh. S.D. Raj, Administrative Officer and Sh. Anil Sood, Junior Accounts Officer. It is alleged that they dishonestly submitted false report in favour of the said companies and gave false and fabricated figures of manufacturing and sale of fertiliser CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 54/55 though there was no manufacturing activity at all. It is also alleged that such periodical inspection for the period 198283 was conducted between 26th to 28th December, 1983 by the said Sh. M.S. Sandhu, the Account Officer. It is also alleged that inspection for the period 198384 was conducted from 2022nd March, 1985 by Sh. Y.R. Khattar, Account Officer, and Sh. Anil Sood, the Junior Account Officer. It is also alleged that inspection for the period 198485 and 198586 was conducted from 2526th February, 1987 by Sh. Ram Singh, the Administrative Officer and Sh. R.K. Bhambi, the Junior Account Officer. It is further alleged that Sh. M.S. Sandhu, Vinod Chandra, Y.R. Khattar, Ram Singh and R.K. Bhambi gave similar false report, mentioning the manufacture and sale of fertiliser by the said companies falsely where in there was no manufacturing activities at all.
It may be also appropriate to refer at this stage that some of the accused have pointed out that there is discrepancy as to the number of bills dealt by them as reflected in the statement prepared by the IO and the details mentioned in other orders. However the said discrepancy, if any, may not be sufficient to discharge the accused at this stage in view of evidence collected CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 55/55 during investigation and the role of respective accused. The discrepancy as to the number of bills dealt by the accused can only be assessed in proper perspective after the evidence is led on record.
The accused have also contended that some of the officers similarly placed have not been chargesheeted and as such they are also entitled to discharge. I am unable to subscribe to the view contended by the counsel for accused at this stage as the differentiating role of the other persons who have not been chargesheeted in the department can only be assessed after the evidence is led on record.
40. A common contention has been raised on behalf of all the accused public servants that the prosecution is not maintainable for want of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. The authorities referred by the counsels for accused as referred in the contentions are not being repeated since the principle laid therein for invoking Section 197 Cr.P.C. is well settled and there is no dispute as to the same.
However so far as requirement of sanction 197 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it may be observed that it is no part of the duty of a CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 56/55 public servant while discharging his official duties to give incorrect reports regarding the functioning of units thereby helping the accused units to falsely claim subsidy bills. There is no dispute as to the principle of law enunciated in various judgements relied on behalf of prosecution as well as accused on the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C. has certain limits and is available only when the alleged acts done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely cloak for doing the objectionable act. The defence of accused that the reports were given bonafide on the basis of records produced by the units can be assessed after the evidence is led on record. At this stage, in the facts and circumstances, the reports and verification of bills do not appear to have been given bonafide in view of overwhelming evidence pointing that the units had not manufactured and supplied the SSP as claimed which was even pointed out in the objections raised by CAO right at inception. In view of above, sanction u/s 197 is not required and there is no bar for prosecution against the accused persons.
CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 57/55
41.Apart from the above evidence revealed during investigation which is sufficient to frame the charges against all the accused, the case against some of the accused is further discussed in view of detailed submissions made on record on their behalf.
In the present case a writ petition preferred by accused Pratap Narain (A8), Executive Director, FICC for quashing the proceedings was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.10.09 passed in WP ( Crl.) 631/2008.
The charge against accused Pratap Narain who happened to be the Executive Director, FICC at the aforesaid time is sought to be proved by prosecution on the basis of following evidence as revealed during investigation and also referred to by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in order dated 09.10.09.
(i) No Single Super Phosphate was actually produced by Punjab Phosphate Private Limited during the period in question and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner as Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar had been regularly informing FICC that this company was not manufacturing and selling any CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 58/55 SSP fertilizer and was in fact submitting Bogus claims for obtaining subsidy.
(ii) The Chief Agriculture Officer was the Verifying Authority on behalf of the State Government in respect of subsidy claims and Directorate of Industries was not competent to verify such claims. Despite that, the petitioner directed processing of the very same subsidy bills, which had earlier been returned by FICC for want of verification by Chief Agriculture Officer, without the bills having been verified by the Verifying Authority.
(iii) Though the letter dated 28.10.82 was not addressed to the petitioner, it was accepted directly by him, bypassing the regular office procedure for receipt of such documents. The letter dated 28.10.82 was not received through regular office channel and was brought directly by Sh. P.K. Parmar, Managing Director of Punjab Phosphate Private Limited to the Executive Director.
(iv) Initially the petitioner wrote " please discuss" on the letter, but, later on he changed the mind and directed processing of the CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 59/55 claims.
(V) The petitioner directed the processing on urgent basis pursuant to which the matter was processed and the payment was made on the very same day.
It may be observed that accused was aware of the clear stand taken by Chief Agriculture Officer (Verifying authority of subsidy bills) that the accused firm had not been manufacturing or supplying the SSP which has been substantiated on investigation by the CBI but yet directed the processing of bills.
At this stage it may not be possible to absolve the accused merely on the ground that FICC acted bonafidely on communication dated 28.10.82 received from Dy. Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab since the FICC was not a subordinate to said department and the dubious claim made by accused unit was already to its notice. The fact that the unit was manufacturing or distributing SSP was strongly disputed by the Chief Agricultural Officer as per the objections raised on the subsidy bills filed by the CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 60/55 unit. The fact that the letter dated 28.10.82 issued by Dy. Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab was brought dasti and was processed on urgent basis reflect that the same may be under undue influence. The stand taken by accused that FICC had processed the bills on verification by DIC as per circulars can be assessed only after the evidence is led on record as the same is strongly disputed by prosecution. The contentions raised by accused were also negated by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.10.09 in writ petition Crl. no. 631/2008. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence on record to frame charges against the accused.
42. The submissions made on behalf of accused Pritam Singh, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab may also be further dealt at this stage.
Sh. Pritam Singh was posted as Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh and had come to the rescue of accused P.K. Parmar by issuing letter dated 28.10.2002 whereby FICC was requested to release the subsidy bills of M/s CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 61/55 Punjab Fertilisers and Pesticides Industries for the period December 1980 to July 1981 verified by the Officer of Industries Department. It may be reiterated that the recommendation for verifying the bills by DIC instead of Chief Agricultural Officer is disputed by the prosecution and it has already been observed that the defence of the accused that it was in accordance with circulars can be assessed only after the evidence is led on record. The said letter does not take note of the anamolies pointed out by the Chief Agricultural Officer wherein a categorical stand had been taken that the unit had not been manufacturing or supplying the fertiliser as claimed. The copy of the said letter was not endorsed to GM/DIC, Amritsar on whose behalf the verification had been conducted by the unauthorised officers.
It is claimed on behalf of accused that Pritam Singh has been cited both as a accused as well as witness and his statement was recorded as PW128 as supplied to him by the prosecution. Perusal of the record reveals that one Pritam Singh S/o Sardar Inder Singh is cited as a witness no. PW128 who had been working in the Office of Chief Agricultural Officer as Development Officer who is different from the Pritam Singh, Dy. Secretary in CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 62/55 question. However, further a statement of Pritam Singh S/o Dayal Singh is also appended with statement of witnesses and again numbered as PW128 wherein Pritam Singh, Dy. Secretary in question appears to have been examined during course of investigation. Since the IO has expired, Ld. PP submitted that said statement may have been recorded only as a part of investigation and it cannot be treated that accused Pritam Singh is also a witness apart from being an accused. It may be pointed out that in the aforesaid statement, Pritam Singh stated that he had been deputed to verify the complaint and had given a report to the effect that production was "on" but the evidence collected by the prosecution is to the contrary.
The defence raised on behalf of accused Pritam Singh that he had acted as per the directions of his seniors and the letter dated 28.10.82 had been endorsed after approval from the seniors can be assessed after the relevant evidence is led by the accused in this regard. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence to frame the charge against the accused.
43. Contentions made on behalf of accused S.K. Sharda and CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 63/55 G.S. Sachdeva (Punjab National Bank) may be also dealt.
As per prosecution case, accused S.K. Sharda while working as Officer with PNB intentionally facilitated the opening of fraudulent accounts in the name of M/s B.K. Enterprises and M/s Vijay Trading Company. It is alleged that accused P.K. Parmar (A2) had signed in an assumed name as Anil Mathur and Vijay Kumar on the said accounts and the account opening form of the said accounts was filled by S.K. Sharda. It is also alleged that S.K. Sharda was known earlier to P.K. Parmar as he had introduced a large number of accounts in Chaitainya Gramin Vikas Bank, Meham and was also instrumental in opening the account of M/s Shiva Ply Fabric in PNB, Meham Mandi Branch, Amritsar of accused P.K. Parmar.
In the aforesaid context, it is further the case of prosecution that G.S. Sachdeva (A20) was working as Manager, PNB, Amritsar and was instrumental in opening bank account of P.K. Parmar in name of M/s B.K. Enterprises and M/s Vijay Trading Company since the account opening form was verified by him. It is also alleged that accused G.S. Sachdeva also passed the vouchers relating to transfer of CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 64/55 amounts from one account to another i.e. B.K. Enterprises and Vijay Trading Company to Punjab Phosphate and viceversa.
It may be noticed that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation that accused S.K. Sharda had been known to accused P.K. Parmar and had been instrumental in opening of accounts in favour of family members of P.K. Parmar. During the course of contentions, it was denied by the counsel for accused that account opening form in name of B.K. Enterprises and Vijay Trading Company were filled by S.K. Sharda but the written submissions filed on record on behalf of Sant Kumar Sharda reflect to the contrary. It is mentioned in para 3 of the written contentions that "being a subordinate officer, Mr. Sharda simply filled up the account opening form under direction from his senior in the branch thereby the discharging duties of a subordinate officer. Further had Mr. Sant Kumar Sharda refused to fill up the forms, this would have been tantamount to disobedience." The contention raised on behalf of accused at this stage that the forms were not filled by him as such appears to be contrary to his own written submissions. Further as per opinion of GEQD the CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 65/55 signatures on the account opening forms in the assumed name were made by accused P.K. Parmar. It may be observed that at the time of the opening of the accounts, the person who opens the account needs to be personally present and normally signs in the presence of the Manager or the Authorised Officers. Prima facie the fake accounts were opened and the account opening forms were signed by P.K. Parmar under assumed names. The same could not have been possible without the complicity of the bank officials. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence to frame the charge against both the accused. Whether the role of accused S.K. Sharda was only limited to only partly filling of the forms or much more, can be assessed only after the evidence is led on record. Similarly the contention raised on behalf of G.S. Sachdeva that he was not the Accountant or instrumental in opening the account can be assessed after the relevant witnesses are examined on record.
44)The contentions made on behalf of accused Prem Singh may be further dealt. It may be noticed that chargesheet was filed in the present case on 30.12.94 during winter vacations as CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 66/55 observed in order dated 02.01.95 but the documents were yet to be filed on record. The cognizance finally appears to have been taken after considering the chargesheet on 18.07.98 after the documents were filed on record. Since the sanction had been obtained u/s 19 of the PC Act against accused Prem Singh prior to taking of cognizance, I do not find any infirmity in continuing the proceedings against accused Prem Singh.
It may be appropriate to mention that PW118 Sh. Ajmer Singh and PW119 Gurdev Singh Brar examined by the IO stated that they had accompanied accused Prem Singh, then Joint Director, FICC for inspection of the unit fixed for 18.09.86 and on seeing the factory premises, in their opinion, there was no manufacturing activity though some labourers were present and produced as regular labourers by the representative of manufacturing unit. They further stated that they were convinced that unit is defrauding the Government. They further stated that accused Prem Singh did not prepare any report on joint inspection at the spot and on seeing the report subsequently, they found that their opinion had not been incorporated. They further stated that the report given by Prem Singh was contradictory to the opinion of CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 67/55 Directorate including opinion of Ajmer Singh.
In view of above, contention raised on behalf of accused that he had given a correct report as per ground conditions and on the basis of earlier reports existing before his joining, can be assessed after the evidence is led on record. At this stage it cannot be held that the report given by accused Prem Singh was correct and the evidence collected during investigation pointing that there was no manufacturing activity carried in the unit is incorrect. As such, prima facie there is sufficient evidence to frame the charges against this accused though he claims to have joined FICC only about few months prior to the inspection.
45)On perusal of the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., contents of the record seized by the CBI during investigation and after considering the detailed submissions made by the counsels, I am of the considered view that prima facie that there is enough material on record to frame charges for commission of offences punishable U/s 120-B IPC r/w sec 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5(2) r/w Sec 5(1)(d) PC Act, 1947 against all the accused. Accused (public servants) Ranveer Seth, Daulat Singh, R.C. Nirmal, Pratap Narain, M.S. Sandhu, Vinod Chandra, Y.K. Khattar, Rajesh Kumar Bhambi, CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 68/55 Ram Singh, Prem Singh, Pritam Singh, Sant Kumar Sharda and Gurjeet Singh are also liable to be charged for offences u/s 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sec 420 IPC. Charge be also framed against accused Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd., Lalit Kumar Parmar, Punjab Fertilizer and Pesticides Industries Pvt. Ltd. for substantive offences u/s 420/467/468 and 471 IPC.
Announced in the (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) open Court on 09.09.2011 Special Judge(PC Act) CBI-8, Central District. CC no. 80/11 RC no.11/88 CBI Vs. Punjab Phosphate & Ors. 69/55