Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Engineers Surendra Prasad and Vindhyachal Singh @ Bindhyachal Singh are alleged to have counter signed the fake bitumen invoices in criminal conspiracy with contractor Upendra Prasad for release of bills to the tune of Rs.85,91,443/- in RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R. Bitumen was procured for the execution of work contract for improvement of Bano PWD Road to Pabura Nimtur Pangur Path for 10 Kms.

4. Engineers Surendra Prasad and Onkar Prasasd Gupta are alleged to have counter signed the fake bitumen invoices in criminal conspiracy with contractor Uma Chandra Prasad Keshri for release of bills to the tune of Rs.41,95,611/- in RC Case No.15(A)/2009. Bitumen was procured for the execution of work contract for maintenance and repair of Lachargarh-Jaldega Road for 11 Kms. CHARGE & CONVICTION

COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL

7. The main plank of argument on behalf of the appellants is that prosecution has failed to prove that the invoices which were presented by the contractors were forged and fabricated. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that by procurement of bitumen from source other than Public Sector Unit and its use in road construction, in any way compromised the quality of the road, thereby causing any wrongful loss to the State. In the absence of proof of wrongful loss, charge of cheating or forgery will not be made out because causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss, is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating and forgery. At best, it will be a face of codal violation or irregularity, but will not rise to the level of criminality. SPECIFIC ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ENGINEERS, (SURENDAR PRASAD, VINDHYACHAL SINGH , ONKAR PRASAD GUPTA)

8. It is argued that the Executive Engineer was responsible for the final payment to the contractor. Role of Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer was confined to physical verification of bitumen used at the construction site. It was only the Executive Engineer, Contractor and Oil Companies who were involved in the process of bitumen procurement. In order to substantiate this line of argument, reliance is placed on the deposition of P.W. 2-Ram Kumar Mahto, REO, Simdega in para 17 as deposed in RC 17(A)/2009.

22. With regard to the argument of wrongful loss, it has been argued that the very procurement of bitumen from sources other than PSU amounted to wrongful loss to the public exchequer.

23. It is further argued that making a false document dishonestly is itself sufficient to attract the provision of Section 471 of the IPC. ANALYSIS & FINDING

24. Main question for determination before this Court is whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove the charges of fraud and forgery against the Contractors, that they in gross violation of the terms of work agreement had procured bitumen from source other than IOCL, and had received payment of bills on the fake invoices purported to be issued by IOCL. Whether the Engineers had entered into criminal conspiracy with the contractors to facilitate the payment of fake bills by the Contractors.