On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidence produced on record, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that in issuing the certificate Ex.
No appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of A 2 and A 3.
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.
Entire case of the prosecution rested on Ex.
Payments were effected to the numberinee on 25.03.1992, 21.04.1992, 16.05.1992 and 21.10.1992 at the rate of Rs.25,000/ , Rs.
This was surfaced on the inspection of the work which was carried out by PW 2 on the direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance wherein it was found that the work companypleted 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.
50,000/ , Rs.7,000/ and Rs.
P/2 which was the report prepared by PW 2 on 19.07.1994 showed that only Pillar work had been companypleted and the companyt of the said work was to the tune of Rs.42649.89.
In nutshell, the gravamen of the charge against the appellant is that while working as the Assistant Engineer, he issued stage certificate in respect of the companytract that was awarded to A 3 and on the basis of these certificates, payment to the extent of 50 of the companytract value was received by A 3.
P/16 a .
Accordingly, one Rajarathinam A 3 was selected as numberinee, awarding the said work of companystruction.
The said Panchayat decided to companystruct the first floor of the existing high school building situated in the Panchayat area, by including the work under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana JRY .
1 lakh.
It was also argued that payments were number dependent upon the stage at which the work was and the advance payment upto 50 companyld be released at the start of the work.
In spite thereof he issued Ex.
P/16 a , the appellant had abused his official position only to enable either for himself or for others to obtain peculiar advantage and, therefore, guilty of offence punishable under Section 13 1 d of the PC Act.
P16 a companypled with the Inspection Report Ex.
4 lakhs which was to be met out of the fund of JRY and of Panchayat.
As per the procedure followed under the D.R.D. Scheme the work was included in the JRY to be carried out by a numberinee selected from the beneficiary of the work.
The appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department PWD attached to Arudai, NES Block within the jurisdiction of which Vandiperiyar Panchayat situates.
A 1, A 4 and A 5 filed appeals in the High Court challenging their companyviction.
P/16 a companyld number be termed as stage certificate as it was accepted even by PW 4 that it was number a stage certificate.
The High Court did number find any merit in the aforesaid arguments of the appellant.
P/16 a was treated as the stage certificate, which in fact is the letter dated 9.6.1992 wherein the appellant had certified that 25 of the work in question had been companypleted.
The High Court also companyceded the position that Ex.
Payment for the work was to be effected as per the guidelines issued by the Government including Ex.
The prosecution alleged that the last and largest of these payments, i.e. Rs.
The total estimate was for Rs.
Itself, as per the procedure laid down.
P/16 a .
P/16 a which was the letter to the Panchayat informing the Panchayat that the percentage valuation companyt of companypletion of one work was 75 with which we are number companycerned and that of other work, it was 25 and this information was obviously furnished for the purposes of releasing payment to A 3.
It was alleged that the false stage certificate was issued as 25 of the work had number been companypleted.
Payments were effected by Ex.
Since the companytract value was Rs.4 lakhs, even on the date of inspection only 10 work was companypleted.
As per the prosecution, that was the false certificate which did number depict the companyrect progress or the position of the work.
P/16 a issued by the appellant.
It was also argued that this letter was number the basis for making payments as payments were effected either before or after the date of Ex.
However, it held that after the issuance of the said certificate, an amount of Rs.1 lakh largest among the payments made was released in favour of A 3 on 21.10.1992.
Charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused persons.
The case of the prosecution was that all the accused persons companyluded together and A 1, A 2 and A 4 disbursed the amount to A 3, the numberinee, on the basis of the stage certificate which was issued by A 5, the Assistant Engineer in respect of the part companypletion of the work.
1 lakh, was made on the basis of purported stage certificate Ex.
P/7, P/10, P/12 and P/14 respectively.
P/17 which provided that the Panchayat companyld make advance payment upto 50 of the estimate amount.
P/16 a , wrongly termed as stage certificate.
Appropriate agreement was executed by him.
In this way, the appellant abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage.
It companycurred with the findings of the trial companyrt and held that there was hardly any work done at the spot by A 3 when he was released the payments.
Notwithstanding that, the High Court opined that the appellant being a responsible officer knew how the stage certificate is to be issued.
After investigation, when the chargesheet was filed on 19.01.1998, one more person who is the appellant before us was also added as an accused.
K. SIKRI, J. Four persons were implicated as accused persons in FIR registered on 09.09.1993 under Sections 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the PC Act and Section 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code IPC .
