Facts of the case
- The appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) attached to Arudai, NES Block within the jurisdiction of which VandiperiyarPanchayat situates.
- The said Panchayat decided to construct the first floor of the existing high school building situated in the Panchayat area, by including the work under JawaharRozgarYojana (JRY).
- As per the procedure followed under the D.R.D. Scheme the work was included in the JRY to be carried out by a nominee selected from the beneficiary of the work.
- Accordingly, one Rajarathinam (A-3) was selected as nominee, awarding the said work of construction. Appropriate agreement was executed by him.
- The total estimate was for Rs. 4 lakhs which was to be met out of the fund of JRY and of Panchayat. Payment for the work was to be effected as per the guidelines issued by the Government which provided that the Panchayat could make advance payment upto 50% of the estimate amount.
- All the accused persons colluded together and A-1, A-2 and A-4 disbursed the amount to A-3, the nominee, on the basis of the ‘stage certificate’ which was issued by A-5, the Assistant Engineer in respect of the part completion of the work.
- The stage certificate, in fact is the letter wherein the appellant had certified that 25% of the work in question had been completed.
- Payments were effected to the nominee on at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.7,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh.
- Rs. 1 lakh, was made on the basis of purported ‘stage certificate’ issued by the appellant.
- It was alleged that the false stage certificate was issued as 25% of the work had not been completed. In this way, the appellant abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage.
- On the inspection of the work which was carried out by PW-2 on the direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance),it was found that the work completed was only to the extent of Rs.42,649.89, that too as on the date of inspection which was much after the date on which stage certificates were issued by the appellant. Since the contract value was Rs.4 lakhs, even on the date of inspection only 10% work was completed.
- Chargesheet was filed under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused persons.
- Matter went on trial and resulted in acquittal of A-2 and A-3 from all the charges and conviction of A-1, A-4 and A-5 (the appellant) under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
- A-4 and A-5 filed appeals in the High Court challenging their conviction.
- A-1 and A-4 passed away during the pendency of their appeals and, therefore, those appeals have abated.
- The appellant in his appeal to the High Court contended that there was no evidence on record to reveal that payments were made on the basis of the said letter wrongly termed as ‘stage certificate’. It was also argued that payments were not dependent upon the stage at which the work was and the advance payment upto 50% could be released at the start of the work. Itself, as per the procedure laid down.
- The appeal of A5 was dismissed by the High Court .
- The appellant appealed in the Supreme Court.
- Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it was permissible for the Panchayat to release 50% of the estimated cost of the Project as advance payment, though it was to be sanctioned only after the project/work has started. This Circularmentioned that money required to start the work can be given in advance and as the work progresses, more funds can be sanctioned. Therefore, release of 50% payment was not contingent upon the stage of the execution of the work, but on the mere start of the work.
Judgment
It was stated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court that, “ the letter was issued on the request of Panchayat President. It mentions that “valuation cost” of the said project is 25%. This letter never stated that A-3 had ‘completed’ 25% work. It only mentioned “valuation cost”. A specific plea was raised by the appellant that it was the cost which was mentioned by him and that included the cost of material as well which was brought on site by A-3.The High Court wrongly proceeded on the basis that advance payment could be given only on installment basis depending upon the percentage of the work completed.We, thus, are of the opinion that there is no causal connection between release of payment to A-3 and the letter.”
The appeal was allowed and the conviction of the appellant was set aside
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT