Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submission of learned Counsel of the parties passed the Judgment of conviction and sentence on 29.03.2019.

13. Aggrieved from the impugned of conviction and sentence on behalf of Ram Bali Ram preferred the Cr. Appeal No. 398 of 2019, on behalf of Shudershan Kumar Jaiswal filed Cr. Appeal No.391 of 2019, on behalf of Satyadeo Prasad Jaiswal filed Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2021 and on behalf of Sunil Kumar Sinha filed Cr. Appeal No. 403 of 2019 on the grounds that the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below is on the wrong appreciation of the evidence on record. Except the fake invoices, no material surfaced to show that the road was sub-standard even the signature on those fake invoices could not be established by the prosecution. The I.O. has stated that the lesser of quantity of the bitumen used in the construction of the road was shown by him on the basis of surmises. From the evidence on record, it is found that whatever the correspondence was done outside the Division was to be done by the Executive Engineer neither by the Junior Engineer nor by the Assistant Engineer. The witness P.W.3 Ram Kumar Mahto in para 20 had stated that the bitumen which was supplied prior to 2009 its verification was not done through the Oil Company but the Junior Engineer used to physically verify the stock. In para 29 this witness admitted that the payment to the contractor was not made on the basis of invoices rather it was made on the basis of finished work. There was no complaint in regard to the material being of lesser quantity. The quality and quantity of the bitumen which was used by the contractor same was checked by the Junior Engineer and the Assistant Engineer and the witness P.W.4 has stated that there was no circular that the Junior Engineer and the Assistant Engineer had the duty to check the invoice relating to the bitumen. P.W.9 Sunil Bose who was the expert witness in regard to quality of the road adduced on behalf of the prosecution has stated that the life of the premix carpeting was between 4 to 5 years. The condition of the road was good even after four years. The presumption would be raised that the work was done as per specification. P.W.11 Deputy Director and Scientist-D CFSL, Kolkata had stated that she had not given any opinion in regard to the handwriting of the appellant Sunil Kumar Sinha. In para 62 the witness Investigating Officer had received the letter by C.B.I. sent by the Executive Engineer wherein it was stated that no any complaint in regard to the road work was ever received. After completion of the road, the riding surface was in good condition and used by the local people. There was no loss caused to the State exchequer. In para 98 I.O. had also admitted in his examination that the letter of I.O.C.L. showed that the bitumen was the free trade product since 1998. 13.1 There is no evidence in regard to the dishonest intention on the part of the appellants to cause wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to the State Government of Jharkhand and the prosecution sanction against the appellants Sunil Kumar Sinha and Raj Bali Ram has also not been proved. The prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants/convicts and therefore prayed to allow all these appeals and to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence and to acquit all the accused persons from the charge levelled against them.

In cross-examination this witness says he cannot say the person according the sanction what documents had been gone through by him.

16.3 P.W.3 Ram Kumar Mahto in his Examination-in-chief says from 2002 to 2013 he was posted in Graim Karya Vibhag, Simdega. Rajbali Ram, Junior Engineer, Sunil Kumar Sinha, Assistant Engineer were posted there. He had worked with them and he is familiar with their signature. All the five bills which relate to Garja-Rangari road. Each bill is in 2 pages which were prepared from the original in carbon process are handwriting and signature of Sunil Kumar Sinha and Rajbali Ram. He identifies them marked Ext. 7 to 7/4. The Measurement Book on which Ext.2 had already been marked which bears the signature of Raj Bali Ram Junior Engineer and also the signature of Assistant Engineer of Sunil Kumar Sinha at page No. 29 to 30 the amount of Rs. 4,32,221/- page No. 21 Rs. 7,03,883/-, Page No. 40 and 41 Rs. 4,43,484/-, page No. 44 Rs. 7,34,472/- page No.53 and 54 Rs. 4,52,768/- was disbursed by Raj Bali Ram then Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer Sunil Kumar Sinha which is marked Ext. 7 to 7/4. The 8 invoice which were earlier marked Ext. 3 to 3/7 and 4 to 4/7 are in the signature and writing of Raj Bali Ram, Junior Engineer and Sunil Kumar Sinha, Assistant Engineer. Garja Rengari road of which total length was 7.54 k.m. its repairing estimate is in 225 pages. This estimate was prepared by him. It bears the signature of Assistant Engineer Sunil Kumar Sinha, Executive Engineer Rajeev Kumar Roy. He had identified them and marked Ext.9. In the Division whatever the work was done same was under the control and power of Executive Engineer. The responsibility of the 100% supervision of the work was of Junior Engineer. 50% responsibility was of the Assistant Engineer and 10% responsibility was of the Executive Engineer.

In cross-examination this witness says all the five bills are the running bill. The final payment was not made. Whenever the final bill is prepared, the amount paid by way of the running bill are adjusted. If the empty drum of the bitumen were not deposited, the cost of the same was deducted at the time of final bill. The five bills were found during process correct by him in Audit Department. The construction of Garja Rengari path was done. The N.I.T. was conducted of the same in the office of Executive Engineer. After N.I.T. the agreement was executed between the Executive Engineer and the contractor. After agreement D.O. letter was issued to the I.O.C.L. Its copy was not given to the Junior Engineer or the Assistant Engineer. The bitumen which was brought by the contractor at the site, the same was to be checked by the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer. All the invoices relating to the bitumen were to be checked by the Junior Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of which there is no circular. During his tenure he did not receive any complaint pertaining to the construction of the road in question.

36. It was the contractor i.e convict/appellant Satyadeo Prasad Jaiswal who has adduced these invoices and these two invoices were also verified by the Junior Engineer Raj Bali Ram and Assistant Engineer Sunil Kumar Sinha. Admittedly no payment was made of these three invoices. Though the invoices were to be produced along with the bills for payment, yet the payment was to be done on the basis of the Measurement Book in which entry of the work done was made. So the payment was made on the basis of the work done. There is no evidence in regard to the conspiracy between the contractor and the Junior Engineer Ram Bali Ram and the Assistant Engineer Sunil Kumar Singh in regard to sharing dishonest intention to play fraud by using these three invoices to get payment from the Department concerned. There is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution that Ram Bali Ram Junior Engineer and Sunil Kumar Sinha Assistant Engineer had prior knowledge that these three invoices were fake. Neither there is the evidence in regard to the conspiracy nor there is any evidence that the convict- appellant Satyadeo Prasad Jaiswal, contractor, Sudershan Jaiswal the agent of the contractor, Ram Bali Ram Junior Engineer and Sunil Kumar Sinha Assistant Engineer had played any deception by using these three invoice as knowing them to be fake. There is no evidence in regard to the wrongful gain obtained the appellants/convicts corresponding wrongful loss to the Govt. of State of Jharkhand.