Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indu Prakash Mishra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA-2328-2018
(INDU PRAKASH MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION)
1
Jabalpur; 16/04/2018
Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondent/CBI.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No.4789/2018, which is an application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Indu Prakash Mishra.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09/03/2018 passed by Special Judge (C.B.I.) & IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Special Case No.15/2014, whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B & 468/471 of the IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- & R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
As per prosecution case, during the year 1999-2000 appellant I.P. Mishra, Senior General Manager, G.C.F., Jabalpur in connivance with co-accused Girijesh Mathur, who was the Works Manager Quality Assurance (QA) and other co-accused dishonestly and fraudulently knowing fully well that M/s Sureka International Kanpur and M/s India Suppliers & Export Company (Pvt.) Kanpur were not the established source of Gun Carriage Factory for supply of cotton Canvas added their names in the list for the issuance of limited tender by misusing their official capacity. Necessary conditions of eligibility for THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2328-2018 (INDU PRAKASH MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) 2 participation with respect to both the firms were relaxed. It is further alleged that objection was raised by the Member finance in this regard, who was one of the members of purchase committee but was overlooked and in order to give favour to the two aforesaid firms, the name of M/s Daisy Trading Corporation, Mumbai was removed on a hypothetical basis and supply order of Canvas cotton material was issued to M/s Sureka International Kanpur and M/s India Suppliers & Export Company (Pvt.), Kanpur for the quantity of 26812 meters and 26813 meters respectively and substandard Canvas cotton material was taken from the said firms thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,57,070.70 to the department and wrongful gain to themselves by way of accepting the substandard Canvas cotton material from the said firms.
Learned counsel of the appellant submitted that co- accused Girijesh Mathur, who was posted as Works Manager, Quality Assurance at relevant period, who allegedly had given wrong test report that the supplied canvass cotton material was conforming to the specifications and Ashok Kumar, who was the Director of M/S Sureka International, Kanpur, who supplied the said substandard canvass cotton material were already granted bail by this Court Vide orders dated 3/4/2018 passed in Cr.A.No.2380/18 and Cr.A.No. 2108/2018 respectively. The appellant's case is on the better footing from these co-accused. Govind Mohan (PW/50) in para 8 of his cross examination clearly admitted that the said material was examined by the Quality Assurance (QA) department of heavy vehicle factory Avadi and gave OK report which shows that supplied Canvas THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2328-2018 (INDU PRAKASH MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) 3 cotton material was of specified norm. Learned trial Court without appreciating prosecution evidence properly, wrongly found appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. The appellant is 75 years old and hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release on bail since the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposed the prayer and submitted that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
Although, this Court had earlier granted bail to co- accused Girijesh Mathur and Ashok Kumar but the case of the present appellant is not similar to these co-accused. The allegation regarding co-accused Girijesh Mathur is that he certified the report Ex.P/101 and P/103 stating that the cone test had been done and the allegation against Ashok was that he supplied that substandard canvass cotton material to GCF. But, the allegations against the appellant is that he was the Senior General Manager, GCF, Jabalpur at the relevant time and he dishonestly and fraudulently knowing fully well that M/s Sureka International Kanpur and M/s India Suppliers & Export Company (Pvt.) Kanpur were not the established source of Gun Carriage Factory for supply of cotton Canvas added their names in the list for the issuance of limited tender by misusing his official capacity. He also relaxed the necessary conditions of eligibility for participation with respect to both the firms. He even ignored the objection raised by the Member finance in this regard, who was one of the members of purchase committee and in order to give favour to the two aforesaid firms, the name THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2328-2018 (INDU PRAKASH MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) 4 of M/s Daisy Trading Corporation, Mumbai was removed on a hypothetical basis and supply order of Canvas cotton material was issued to M/s Sureka International Kanpur and M/s India Suppliers & Export Company (Pvt.), Kanpur for the quantity of 26812 meters and 26813 meters respectively and accepted substandard Canvas cotton material from the said firms which was found substandard in the test conducted by the other defence agencies. Although, Govind Mohan (PW/50) in para 8 of his cross examination stated that the said material was examined by the Quality Assurance (QA) department of heavy vehicle factory Avadi and gave OK report. But, There is no such report on record showing that the QA department of heavy vehicle factory Avadi examined the said Canvas cotton material and found it as per specified norm. On the contrary, this witness himself deposed in his examination in chief, that he had rejected the said material on the basis of test report Learned trial Court in para 70 to 102 and in para no. 172 to 178 of his judgements extensively discussed the prosecution evidence against the present appellant. Looking to the evidence produced by the prosecution against the present appellant and the fact that the applicant by manipulating the process of purchasing goods bought substandard quality of canvas cotton for defence purposes, where maintaining standards of goods is of utmost importance, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of appellant awarded by the trial Court. Hence, I.A. No. 4789/2018 is dismissed.
List for final hearing in due course.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2328-2018 (INDU PRAKASH MISHRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) 5 m/