Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(g) In the said meeting, Mr. Rajaraman, Finance Secretary expLalned the objection of the Finance Department to the then Chief Minister in details. Then, the Minister for Local Administration explained the views of the Rural Development Department. After hearing the different views of the Finance, and Rural Development Departments, the then Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha decided to approve the proposal of the Rural Development Department to place orders for the purchase of Colour T. V. sets at the rate of Rs. 14,500/- per set with those six Companies without adopting Open Tender System, overruling the views of the Finance Department.

(h) Then, the Secretary Dr. Narayan, I.A.S. on perusing the note of the Finance Secretary instructed to prepare the revised note for circulation incorporating the points raised by Finance Department. On pro rata basis as per the instructions of the Secretary, allotment to the six Companies for the supply of various number of T. V. sets were made. Thereafter, the revised note for circulation was signed by Mr. Peter, Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department. Then, Mr. Narayan, Rural Development Secretary signed on 9-12-1995. Afterwards, the entire file along with the revised circulation note was set to Finance Secretary Mr. Rajaraman. After perusal, he put his signature in the file.

82. The above principles have been Lald down in Shivanarayan v. State of Maharashtra .

83. Bearing this legal position in mind, let us now go into the materials available on record as against the petitioner in regard to the first charge framed.

84. In the instant case, the part played by the petitioner is that he signed in the file on 11-12-1995. The witnesses who speak about the putting of signature by the petitioner on 11-12-1995 and the relevant file in which the signature is found are being relied upon by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the conspiracy charge. It is mentioned in the impugned order that having known very well that the Finance Secretary objected to the illegal price hike of Rupees 2,000/- per T. V. set, A3, the then Finance Minister simply cleared the proposal for pursuance of T. V. by signing the file on 11-12-1995. So, the main part attributed to the petitioner is that he did not take into consideration the objection of his own Department. The main witness who speaks about the objection is Rajaraman, Finance Secretary. Mr. Rajaraman has given statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. before the investigating Officer as well as 164 before the Magistrate. He would state in both the statements that when the proposal came from the T. V. Advisory Committee after getting the views of Rural Development Department, as a Finance Secretary he raised several objections on 13-11-1995, since the fixing the price as Rs. 14,500/- in a Limited Tender System and payment of 25% advance would amount to violating the rules under relevant G.Os. and that on 30-11-1995, the then Chief Minister called the Secretary of the Finance Department as well as the other officials in Rural Development and Minister for Rural Development including the Chief Secretary and that in that meeting also Rajaraman raised a similar objection. But, the then Chief Minister after hearing the different, views of both the Departments, namely, Finance Department and Rural Development Department, overruling the objection of the Finance Department and directed to approve the proposal of the Advisory Committee for purchase of the T. V. sets in Limited Tender System for the said price accepting the views of the Rural Development Department. Only thereafter, the revised note was prepared by the Deputy Secretary of Rural Development, one Peter, a witness in this case and the same was signed by him on 9-12-1995. The entire file was sent to the Finance Secretary Rajaraman on the same day. Though the objection was raised by the Finance Secretary earlier, he put his signature on 9-12-1995 on the revised note and thereafter, the file was sent to the Chief Secretary, who in turn signed on 10-12-1995. On the same day, A2 Selvaganapathy, then Minister for Local Administration also signed. Afterwards, the file was sent to the petitioner (A3). On 11-12-1995 he signed and then the file went to the Former Chief Minister, who signed the file immediately on the same day. Therefore, the perusal of the file and the revised note of the circular and the statements of Rajaraman under Sections 161 and 164, Cr. P.C. and the statements of other witnesses would clearly show that the objection raised by the Finance Secretary on two occasions were overruled by the then Chief Minister on 30-11-1995 and only thereafter, the Finance Secretary signed the file on 9-12-1995 and Finance Minister (A3) signed on 11-12-1995.

86. The only material on the basis of which the charge of conspiracy was framed, as pointed out in the impugned order and the learned Public Prosecutor, is the failure on the part of the Finance Minister to take into consideration of the objection raised by his Finance Secretary and simply cleared the file on 11-12-1995 by signing the same, which tantamounts to an illegal omission, an overt act, which was done in pursuance of the conspiracy.

87. The trial Judge, while relying upon the said material, has overlooked the very important factor that the objection raised by the Finance Secretary earlier was overruled by the former Chief Minister as early as 30-11-1995 and then on the direction of the former Chief Minister the revised note was prepared by the Secretary of the Rural Development Department and the same was signed by the Rural Development Department Secretary and the Finance Secretary on 9-12-1995 and that when Finance Secretary signed on 9-12-1995, he did not raise any objection, since it was a revised note as per the direction of former Chief Minister and thereafter the file was signed by the other officials and other Ministers and on 11-12-1995 the file was circulated to the finance Minister, who in turn perused the file and signed the same on the same date, as there was no fresh objection raised by the Finance Secretary. Therefore, the question of illegal omission to take into consideration the objection raised by the Finance Secretary does not arise. When there was no illegal omission, it cannot be said that the petitioner had knowledge about the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by others.