Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. It was next argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the first payment against the supplies was made to HCL Infosystems Ltd. on 23.01.2010 on which date, a bank guarantee in favour of Shreetron India Ltd. was issued by the revisionist/HCL and it is not the case of CBI that any undue payment was made to HCL or that the computers and peripherals were not supplied. It is also not the case of CBI that there has been a compromise in the specifications of the computers and its peripherals or that the warranty and on-site support has not been provided or that prices of 951 computers and its peripherals were inflated at the time of floating of tenders. The allegation of CBI is not that the channel partners received an amount which was higher than what channel partners paid to HCL Infosystems Ltd. and the channel partners retained certain money. CBI alleges that the differential amount is the 'downward revision of price' for the goods supplied and this benefit should have been passed on to Shreetron India Ltd in terms of purchase order dated 10.08.2009 but in making this allegation, CBI has not been able to place on record the price of desktop computers and peripherals of same specification to show the alleged 'downward revision of price' for the goods supplied. CBI, in its chargesheet dated 04.04.2012 has enclosed a performa invoice dated 26.03.2009 raised by UP Electronics Corporation Ltd. to Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Ruhailkhand University which would negate the allegations of 'downward revision of price'. In making the allegations of retaining of the money by the channel partners and in alleging 'downward revision of price', CBI failed to appreciate that in additional to supply of 951 computers and peripherals, HCL was also required to (a) provide on-site warranty support for three years on computer hardware and one year on other items from the date of installation; (b) supply anti-virus software of latest version and load on each computer with validity for three years with on-site warranty support; (c) regular preventive maintenance were to be carried out at each centre; (d) calls were to be attended and faults rectified during a specified time and in case of default, Rs. 100/- per day per system was to be levied by NRHM and the cited works among others was provided by the channel partners and in order to comply with the terms of the purchase order that channel partners were required and provisions were made in the tender document. The retaining of the money by the channel partners was towards the works as detailed herein.

12. Sri P. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the revisionist appearing on behalf of the two revisionists Neeraj Upadhyay, proprietor of M/s. Radhey Shyam Enterprises and Virender Goel, proprietor of M/s. Axis Marketing has argued that the allegations which have been levelled against them is that the said two revisionists in connivance with the main accused namely G.K. Batra, Managing Director of M/s. Shreetron India Ltd. a U.P. Govt. undertaking who influenced M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. to make Radhey Shyam Enterprises and Axis Marketing partners. It has been further alleged that M/s. Shreetron India Ltd. made a payment of Rs. 7.49 crores to them. However, against the said total amount received of Rs. 7.49 crores by them towards the cost of computer and peripherals from M/s. Shreetron India Ltd., these two firms made payment of Rs. 4.55 crores to M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. and balance of Rs. 2.94 crores was misappropriated by the aforesaid two firms. He argued that there is no evidence on record to show that who influenced M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. to make M/s. Axis Marketing, New Delhi and M/s. Radhey Shyam Enterprises as partners. It was further submitted by him that Rs. 2.94 crores have been wrongly alleged to have been misappropriated by the two firms as the said amount was paid for after sale service, guarantee and warranty, repairs and up-gradation of computer systems and peripherals and further up-gradation of software and system and providing facilities for anti-virus protection to the computers, installation and regular check-up for the maintenance of 951 computer systems and peripherals installed at different hospitals. The job work of after sale service as has been referred to above was also the part of same supply and such amount is desirable for the maintenance and all aforesaid works executed by M/s. Axis Marketing, New Delhi and M/s. Radhey Shyam Enterprises, Lucknow on the basis of 50%-50% supply of computer systems as a partner of M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. He next submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and the chargesheet are absolutely false as M/s. Axis Marketing, New Delhi has entered into an agreement with M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. on 02.12.2008 wherein it was stated that M/s. Axis Marketing, New Delhi shall provide services of M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. for their work in the State of U.P. such as delivery co-ordination, Installation co-ordination, upgrade, site inspection and warranty .