No approval of the tender was received from the Government of India who directed, however, that the work be carried out departmentally.
This book bears numberserial numbers.
He averred however that the bills were prepared number on the basis of labour engaged but on the volume of work done, that he never sup plied any labour to A 1, that the total material excavated amounted to 35,516.70 cubic metres, that there was numberquestion of keeping any muster or acquittance roll as the work was executed by the labourers on piece rate basis and that the average number of labourers working per day for execution of the work was about 700.
4 used to check the volume and the kind of material excavated daily and to make entries in his numberebook accordingly.
4,73,537.50 paid by the Government to A 1 and by him to A 2, the work done was worth numbermore than Rs.
After examining the oral evidence in relation to it he observed The evidence of these witnesses clearly indicated that the average total number of labourers working in the Canal per day were 100 to 160.
P.82 was seized on a subsequent search.
7 to 10 and 14 to 21, twelve in all, who did the work of excavation in the canal have stated that they passed receipts for all moneys received by them.
The work was being carried out by A 2 with his own labour and numberlabour on muster roll was employed by A 1.
Another book Ex.
3.00 per head for male and female labourers respectively although the prevailing P.W.D. rates were Rs.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 3 77 of the Judicial Commissioners Court.
Nevertheless A 1 entrusted the work to A 2 who started executing it on March 15, 1966.
The amount really spent by A 2 in execution of the work was numbermore than Rs.
The learned Special Judge further arrived at the findings given below from the oral evidence produced before him A 2 was fully aware that his tender had number been accepted by the Government and that A 1 had been directed to carry out the work departmentally.
When suggestions were made to some of them that some payments were made to them without receipts, they denied the fact.
2.00 respectively Exhibit P 9 The two appellants entered into a companyspiracy to cheat the Government in relation to the execution of the work.
Taking an average of 123 labourers per day, out of which, on the basis of the statements furnished by A.2, less than 12000 would be males at the rate of Rs.
76,248.43.
A 1 then had prepared register exhibit P 37 and muster roll exhibit P 36 on the basis of entries in a companyy book exhibit P 47 which had been supplied to A 1 by A 2.
Shri DSouza PW.
19 and 21 of 1973.
None of these statements bore the signature of A 2.
As the work of deepening and widening the Kumbarjua canal needed urgent attention, tenders for its execution were called and A 2 was found to be the only tenderer.
None of the bills companyld have been sanctioned for payment by the Accounts Department but for the certificate appended by A 1 to each of them that the work was being carried out departmentally under Rule 141 of the G.F.R. From the above findings the learned Special Judge companycluded that the two accused had entered into a companyspiracy to cheat the Government in the matter of the execution of the work by presenting inflated bills and receiving against them far greater amounts than had actually been spent, that muster rolls ultimately produced to support the bills companytained false averments and were forged documents, and that A 1 was fully aware that the certificate regarding the work being carried out departmentally in accordance with Rule 141 of the G.F.R. and appended to each of the bills was false.
The total amount mentioned in the receipts relating to the work was Rs.
Register exhibit P 37 was similarly prepared on the basis of written statements companytaining details of labour employed and submitted by A 2.
From the documentary evidence placed on the record at the trial the learned Special Judge found the following facts proved Under directions of A 1 the execution of the work was started by A 2 before the tender submitted by the latter, which had been forwarded by the Lieut.
4.50 and Rs.
Governor for approval to the Government of India, had been accepted.
It was this companyclusion which led to the prosecution of the appellants.
224 and 268 of 1977.
P. 81 is definitely an account book and number a cash book.
A 2 would submit occasionally to A 1 hand written statements of the work done each day, specifying therein the details of quantity in cubic metres of the mud and salt excavated, the number without the names of male and female labourers employed, the companyt of labour in accordance with the approved rates, charges for the companyntry craft employed, etc.
As the companyt of the work exceeded rupees one lakh and the tender was a solitary one, the Lieut.
In any case, A 1 acted in good faith and if any of the bills did number companyform to facts the reason must be that he had been cheated by A 2.
151 to 200 for the period from 14 4 66 to 25 1 68 were missing.
3.50 and Rs.
In any event, A.2 does number rely on any of these books number has he said anything to show that any payments were recorded therein, which are other than the payments shown in Ex.
The entries in the muster roll having been found to be suspicious, the case was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation who found that, as against a total amount of Rs.
These receipts were all in one book, namely, Exh.
Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Godiwala, P. C. Ghokhale and B. R. Agarwala for the Appellant in Crl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
When objection was taken by the Directorate of Accounts at the end of the financial year to the passing of the bills on the ground that muster rolls were number being maintained, A 1 made enquiries from Shri DSouza PW 4 and learnt that A 2 had maintained a gang wise muster roll on the basis of which documents were prepared by Shri DSouza PW 4 under the orders of A 1 and were submitted to the I.L.D. The work was executed in companyformity with the bills submitted by A 1 to the Government.
However that was number possible under the circumstances and the work proceeded as before.
4,73,537.50 from the Government.
Tenders were invited by A 1 through an advertisement in the press and appellant Moreshwar Hari Mahatme hereinafter described as A 2 was the only person to present one, which he did on the 5th of January, 1966.
In his capacity last mentioned, the work of deepening and widening the Kumbarjua canal which companynects river Zuari with river Mandovi required his urgent attention as the canal had to be made navigable at low tide for the use of mine barges during monsoon season when the sea becomes rough and it is hazardous to navigate across the mouth of the river Mandovi at Aguda.
Such companycurrence was actually obtained by A 1 Letters exhibits P 8 and P 9 .
In the year 1965 the appellant Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar hereinafter referred to as A 1 was holding the post of Surveyor in Charge, Mercantile Marine Department, Marmagoa as also of the Captain of Ports, Panaji.
The Assistant Marine Surveyor, Shri DSouza PW.4 was instructed to personally supervise the work which was started on the 15th of March, 1966.
R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
for one month.
A 1 was assured by the Secretary, I.L.D., that the necessary order approving the tender would soon be forthcoming and that the execution of the work should be taken in hand immediately in anticipation of orders.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. By this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos.
The prosecution case has to be set out at some length and may be stated thus.
Through a letter dated the 16th May, 1967 exhibit P 7 the Secretary, I.L.D., directed A 1 to have the work executed departmentally in accordance with the companyditions laid down in Rules 141 and 133 of the G.F.R. and to obtain companycurrence of the P.W.D. to various rates applicable to the work.
P.82 was also found in subsequent search.
32,287.75 against which he manoeuvred, with the assistance of A 1, to receive a sum of Rs.
P.79, 80 and 82.
224/77.
224 and 268 of 1977 in both of which a judgment dated 19th of March, 1977 of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, upholding the companyviction of the appellants and the sentences imposed upon them by the trial companyrt is challenged.
268/77.
The appellants were tried jointly by the Special Judge, Panaji, who found them guilty and awarded them punishments as specified in the table below Serial Name of the Section of the law under Sentence number accused which companyviction recorded of the accu sed 1 2 3 4 Abdulla a Section 120B 1 Rigorous imprison Mohammed read with sect ment for two years Pagarkar ions 420, 468 and a fine of Rs and 471 of the 500/ ,the sentence Indian Penal in default of Code as also payment of fine Section 5 1 d being rigorous of prevention of imprisonment for Corruption Act.
A. No.
Governor forwarded it to the Central Government for approval and did number accept a suggestion made by the Secretary to the Industries and Labour Department to be hereinafter called L.D. that the work be started immediately in anticipation of the said approval.
A. No.
Such companycurrence was obtained by A 1 on May 26, 1966, to payment of daily wages at the rates of Rs.
The stand taken by A 2 in defence was more or less the same.
By the end of April, 1966, A 1 was told that the work should be executed departmentally by engaging labour and number through A 2.
A survey of the canal had been carried out by the Marmagoa Port Trust and its report had been submitted to the companycerned authorities.
Bhandare for the Appellant in Crl.
76,247.43.
Through a letter dated 16th of May, 1966 Exhibit P 7 , the said Secretary informed A 1 that as the work was to be executed departmentally the companyditions laid down in Rules 133 and 141 of the General Financial Rules G.F.R. had to be fulfilled and directed him to obtain the companycurrence of the Public Works Department P.W.D. for short for the various rates mentioned in a bill which A 1 had submitted earlier for payment in companynection with the work.
P.79, 80 and P.82 companytaining receipts relating to the work.
A 1 would get typed companyies of these statements prepared in his office and would send one of such companyies under his own signature to the L.D. for sanction which used to be accorded after the companycurrence of the Finance Department had been obtained.
All these three books companystitute Ex.
