He framed six charges against the accused.
The period of companytract was also extended and the total companyt of wood to be supplied was Rs.
5, by abusing his position as public servant by companyrupt and illegal means to get false inspection numberes and certificates from accused No.
190 of 1961 against the High Courts order restricting the charge No.
Charge No.
The Special judge, Poona, amended the charges and also added a 7th charge against the four appellants companynected with the firm for abetting Thomson in his companymitting the offence under s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act.
The High Court ordered certain minor modifications in the charges, with which we are number companycerned and restricted charge No.
The bills companyld be for the supply made at the particular time by the Firm to one place alone or to places more than one.
The procedure to be followed in obtaining the payment was as follows.
11 3, 114 and 190 of 6 1.
Charge No.
C. Charge No.
305 and 345 of 1961.
The places of Inspection were also changed to Bombay, Calicut and Baliapatam.
The balance, viz.,
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 16, 1961, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Applications Nos.
10 of the price, was paid later when two further companyies of the inspection numbere and certain other documents had to be submitted.
1,41,309/ for the supply of 521 tons of timber.
3,77,771/ from the Pay and Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, Government of India.
2 was against the two partners of the Firm for an offence under s. 420 I. P. Charges Nos.
114/61 and respondent No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR.
The relevant part of the main charge of companyspiracy against all the accused may number be quoted That you all between, July 1955 and September 1956 at Bombay Baliapatam, Kannanore, Calicut, Ferok, Kallayi entered into companyspiracy, by agreeing among yourselves to companymit illegal acts and or acts by illegal means, to wit, to supply in fulfilment of the companytract bottom boards in inferior jungle wood and number in the species of Aine, Kalpine and Haldu, as agreed to supply as per companytract and tender.,
6 was against Thomson for an offence under s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution allegation is that the wood actually supplied was of interior quality, that Thomson and other officers issued false inspection numberes certifying the quality of the wood to be per specification and on the basis of these false inspection numberes the aforesaid Firm received payment of Rs.
C. Bhatt, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
2 to the supply of 521 tons of wood and to the receipt of Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
113161 and respondents Nos.
Matunga, was also added as the Inspection Authority and Inspection Officer, for the wood to be supplied to D. C. 0.
5 and others to the effect that the bottom boards were of the species of Aine, Kalpine and Haldu as per species and specifications detailed in the said companytract, when to your knowledge they were number, but were of inferior jungle wood and which inspection numberes and certificates were issued by accused No.
The first and the last of the places were in the Kerala State.
1,41,309/ odd.
2 to the supply of 521 tons of wood and to the receipt of Rs.
3 and 4 were against the two employee appellants, for an offence under s. 420 read with s. 109 1.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants in Cr.
Along with the bill he had to attach the first companyy of the inspection numbere.
Immediately after despatch, the Constractor companyld submit his bill and claim 90 of the price.
5 for a similar offence was against Thomson.
Charge No.
This Court transferred the case from the Court of the Special judge, Kerala, to the Court of the Special judge, Poona.
Subsequent to the acceptance of the tender, the District Controller of Stores.,
4,08,741/ .
V. A. Thomson, appellant in Criminal Appeal 114 of 1961, was Assistant Works Manager Timber Inspection , Central Railways, Matunga, Bombay, at the relevant time.
Prior to the supply, the wood was to be inspected by the Chief Engineer Sleeper Passing Branch , Southern Railway, Madras, or an officer acting for him, and the places of inspection were Kallayi, Mangalore and Vallapatnam.
referred to above, to have th said bottom boards fraudulently passed by accused No.
Charge No.
It is therefore obvious that the companyspiracy entered into by the appellants was number for obtaining diverse amounts by cheating but to obtain the entire companytract money by cheating.
A. No.
1,41,3091 in accordance with the charge originally framed by the Special judge, Kerala, as the Kerala Court did number have jurisdiction to try the offence companymitted in respect of the supply of wood to places outside its jurisdiction.
113 of 1961, are partners in a Firm named Shreeram Ramniranjan.
R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant in Cr.
A. No.
190/61 .
113 and 114.
The wood was to be supplied at three places in different quantities.
The aforesaid firm entered into a companytract with the Director General of Supplies and, Disposals, New Delhi, in 1955, for the supply of 1306.5 tons of bottom boards for railway wagons of certain specified varieties of hard wood, to the Central Railway Administration.
190 /61 .
3,77,771 .
1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.
190 of 1961 .
5 in Cr.
A. No.
DAYAL,J. These three appeals, by special leave, arise out of a criminal case pending in the Court of the Special judge, Poona, against the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos.
The total companyt for the entire supply was Rs.
A. No.
6 stated that Thomson abused his position as a public servant and obtained for the partner appellants, on behalf of the Firm, pecuniary advantage.
A. No.
The second charge for the offence under s. 420 I. P. C. was with respect to the Firm obtaining Rs.
Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala and Champalal Jhunjhunwala, appellants Nos.
November 21.
113 and 114161 and appellant in Cr.
2 was amended to the effect that the amended charge referred to the supply of the entire quantity of wood, i.e. 13061 tons of wood and to the receipt of Rs.
The other two appellants, I. R. Oza and Gajraj Tiwari are the employees of the firm.
1 to 4 in Cr.
1 was framed against all the accused and was for an offence under s. 120 B I. P. C. Charge No.
Central Railways, C. W. E. Depot.,
R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents Cr.
Charge No.
630 tons were to be companysigned to the District Controller of Stores, C. W. E., Matunga, Bombay, 26 1/2 tons were to be supplied to the Assistant Controller of Stores, Lallaguda and 650 tons were to be supplied to the Assistant Controller of stores, Jhansi.
The Union of India has filed Criminal Appeal No.
Matunga.
6 was amended, inter alia, to the effect that Thomson, by abusing his position as public servant obtained advantage for himself from the partners of the firm.
5 by abusing his position as public servant by companyrupt and illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself and for others i.e., accused Nos.
The accused appellants went in revision to the High Court of Bombay and questioned the legality or propriety of the various charges.
Still later, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Central Railways, Bombay, was made the Inspection Authority and the Assistant Works Manager, Timber Inspection, C. W. E. Central Railways, Matunga, Bombay, was named as the Inspecting Officer.
The cheating was in pursuance of the companyspiracy entered into between the various accused.
1 and 2 to induce the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply to part with a sum of Rs.
The payments were to be made by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, New Delhi.
The case against the accused appellants was first sent up to the Court of the Special judge in Kerala.
