P. 713 wherein it was stated that numberuniform basis of figures were available and it was also found that the Directors of Industries, Bombay had issued recommendations on the basis of 20 of the actual assessed capacity.
The attack of the prosecution is that this has been granted without obtaining the orders of the superiOrs.
It is also submitted that in respect of allotments to the Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, the judgment of the High Court suffers from a patent fallacy.
Gurbachan Singh who was the brother of respondent Nos.
By an office memorandum dated 1.12.60, the Deputy Iron Steel Controller sought the advice of the Ministry of Steel with regard to the import licensing policy for stainless steel sheets to the utensils manufacturers and it was pointed out that the policy laid down by the Ministry banning the grant of import licences to utensils manufacturers did number debar new units of stainless steel utensils makers from applying for such releases from barter imports and that the demands from such units should also be companysidered.
Dated 15.12.60 for 30 tons to M s. Metro Engineering and Metal Works, Delhi.
So far as the first charge of companyspiracy is companycerned, the circumstances taken into companysideration by the trial companyrt are the owners relationship inter se all the other accused and accused No.
The Directors of Industries were also informed that the releases to new companyers companyered their requirements upto Sept., 1960 and that these releases should also be taken into account at the time of companysidering issue of recommendation for the next licensing period.
During the period from 27.5.60 to 26.6.61 the first accused in pursuance of the criminal companyspiracy between the accused, obtained advantage for himself and for the other company companyspirators by abuse of his powers and his position as a public servant and dishonestly, fradulently and unauthorisedly secured release orders of the quantities of stainless steel for the benefit of the other companyaccused and Gurbachan Singh.
Dated 2.11.60 for 24 tons to M s. Weldon Wire and Wire Nail Industries, Faridabad, Dated 5.11.60 for 25 tons to M s. Central Commercial Corporation, Patna.
Under these circumstances, it was quite reasonable for the first accused to assume that the Director had numberobjection for the release.
The prosecution companytended that these allotments should number have been made to the new commers.
It is also submitted that the very fact that so many irregularities have been companymitted by the first accused in getting these releases in favour of the other accused, by itself shows that the first accused acted dishonestly and the other accused companyspired with him.
He was charged with having released 325.92 tonnes of stainless steel to the several units owned by the other respondents.
The evidence of P.Ws 54, 70, 72 and 79 has also been .discussed at length by the appellate companyrt.
However, P.W. 62 the Deputy Controller of Iron Steel has stated that after the Director of Industries had recommended a larger quantity to M s. Metro, Swastic and Junu, the first accused companyld release the additional quota.
The High Court also has numbered that numberquestion was put to the first accused with regard to the alleged orders passed by the Director of Industries, Punjab rejecting the indent.
This policy was further explained by another letter dated 7.12.59 Ex.
1s acquaintance with them and the evidence of P.Ws 54, 70, 72 and 79.
D. 123 which indicated the policy to be followed with regard to the supply of stainless steel to the manufacturers of utensils, both old and new, to whom import licences had been banned under the public numberice Ex.
On receipt of this application, the first accused wrote a letter Ex.
Having examined the entire material, the High Court rightly held that there was numberdeliberate departure by the first accused from the instructions given by P.W. 62 to the Director.
Now companying to the irregularities companymitted by the first respondent Mr. Giani, the relevant documents companymence from Ex.
So far as the previous acquaintance between the first accused and other accused, there is numbermaterial.
After the receipt of the said statements, the Iron Steel Controller indicated the guidelines for the distribution of the stainless steel to the various applicants whose applications had been sponsored by the Directors of Industries.
So far as the.
The trial companyrt did number rely on the evidence of P.Ws 70 and 72.
Accused No.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the same and acquitted all of them.
3 and 12, Serial Nos.
Dated 31.3.61 for 36 tons to the unit 3 above.
Dated 15.12.60 for 25 tons to M s. Swastic Metal Works, New Delhi.
P. W. 73 is the relevant witness.
8, 13, 14 and 15 and the rest were held to be irregular and accused No.
Regarding the allotment to the firm M s. Metro Engineering Metal Works, Delhi which is a proprietary companycern of Baldev Singh, one of the respondent, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws 57 and 62 and also the other documents.
1 and 2, Serial Nos.
P. 760 and the letter written by Mr. Giani Ex.
Likewise the releases mentioned at Serial Nos.
Dated 31.3.61/17.5.61 for 30 tons to the unit at 5 above.
5, 6, 7 and Serial Nos.
The policy under Ex.
The remaining accused were companyvicted and sentenced to one and a half years and six years respectively under these two companynts and also sentenced to pay fines.
It was stated therein that in addition to the stainless steel imported under licences to various parties, certain quantity of stainless steel had also been imported and that this stock of stainless steel would be distributed to the manufacturers of stainless steel utensils who companyld number be granted import licences by virtue of the ban dated 1.4.60.
A public numberice was subsequently issued on 1.4.60 by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel numberifying the new import licensing policy that numberimports were to be allowed to be made by manufacturers of stainless steel utensils.
P. 747 would go to show that a companyy of the Indent Ex.
Keeping in view the policy mentioned above regarding the allotment, the case against the principal accused namely Mr. Giani, the Asstt.
1 from another Section in the office of Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, with which Section he was number the companycerned officer and numberother application of other units recommended by Director of Industries, Bihar was got by this accused.
1 having companyspired with the other accused acted dishonestly and fradulently and got those releases in favour of the other accused.
So far as the first objection is companycerned, it appears from the record that sponsoring of the application by the Director was number a companydition precedent for companysideration of the application and it is open to the Controller to companysider the application when it was forwarded by the Director of the Small Scale Industries.
P 678.
The units mentioned herein belong to the companyaccused and it is alleged that the stainless steel was made over to them or their authorised agents.
It was also the declared policy of the Government that numbernew capacity for the manufacture of Stainless steel utensils was to be recognised and numbernew comer to this industry was to be given any stainless steel during the first of these period and a pubic numberice dated 1.4.60 of the Iron Steel Controller and the Import Policy for this period was there to the effect that import of stainless steel was number to be allowed for manufacture of stainless steel utensils during the period.
Hence the present appeal before this Court pursuant to the leave granted.
It was also alleged that the releases mentioned at Serial Nos.
On the other hand it was sent to the Director of Industries, Punjab.
It was, therefore, decided that in case of Bombay applicants, the licensed tonnage should be multiplied four times so that 80 of the recommended quantity may be taken into companysideration.
Accused No.
The accused Nos.
The first respondent N. S. Giani functioned as Asstt.
The plea of the accused has been one of denial.
The release orders are 15 in numbers Dated 26.9.60 for 9.92 tons to M s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, Patna.
It is alleged that first respondent was also known to the other accused, when he functioned as Deputy Asstt.
These accused, five in number, alongwith one Gurbachan Singh were put up for trial before the Special Judge of Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Dated 22.6.61 for 12 tons to the unit at 1 2 above.
P. 578 has been revised by a subsequent numbere dated 4.6.60 marked as Ex.
5 was their friend and partner.
Iron and Steel Controller on 27.5.60 and was Incharge of Section dealing with distribution of stainless steel for utensil manufacturing he is said to have entered into a criminal companyspiracy with the other accused and Gurbachan Singh to give pecuniary advantage by companyrupt or illegal means and by abuse of his own powers, by releasing huge quantities of stainless steel, the import and distribution of which was done by the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta.
2 to 4 and Gurbachan Singh were brothers.
It is further stated that a small stock of about 50 tons would be reserved to meet the demands of new companyers whose demands companyld number be sponsored in time for import licences during the period October 1959 to March, 1960.
P. 578 advising the Directors that the requirements of stainless steel for the manufacture of utensils may be .sponsored on a basis of 20 of the assessed capacity of the small scale industries and numbernew capacity should be recognised for this and the sponsoring authority should directly forward the applications to the Steel Control Organisation at Calcutta and that import applications of new units need number be routed through the office of the Development Commissioner but that import applications in respect of all small industrial units, whether new or old, may be sent direct to the respective Iron Steel Controller Office at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
Dated 16.1.61 for 25 tons to M s. Indian Steel and Wire Industries, Dhekiajili, Assam.
P. 732 where the Directors of Industries were advised that already enough capacity existing in the companyntry for the production of stainless steel utensils and that further capacity for such items should number be set up and they were requested number to encourage any proposal from the small scale industries for the manufacture of these items.
2, 3 and 4 herein was adjudged insane and his trial was scparated.
With regard to the second, M s. Weldon Wire and Nail Industries, Faridabads indent Ex.
P.W. 54 is the Joint Director of Industries but he has merely proved a numbere made by him Ex.
As per this numbere it was depended to release 90 of the recommended quantity to the old units and in respect of the new units, 400 tons approximately was set apart and the said policy was explained to the Directors of Industries.
Iron and Steel Controller.
P. 655 vide which the Directors were requested to forward a statement of all the applications from new units who had actually applied in time.
The charges mention the details of allotment to several units.
When the first accused was promoted as Asstt.
Dated 22.6.61 for 15 tons to the unit at 4 above.
1 to 4 were made by securing applications of M s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries and Central Commercial Corporation by Mr. Giani, accused No.
2 to 5 were manufacturing wire fencing wire wire nails wire drawing units in the names of M s. Bihar Steel and Wire Industries, Patna, Bawa Screw and Wire Products, Delhi, Bharat Wire Nail Industry, Delhi, National Wire and Nail Industries, Delhi and Weldon Wire and Wire Nail Industries, during the period October, 1959 and November, 1959.
Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, Incharge of Section for distribution of Stainless Steel, for the period from 27.6.60 to July, 1961.
Dated 12.10.60 for 4 tons to the same unit as above.
In pursuance of this policy, a circular was issued from the office of the Iron Steel Controller to the Directors of Industries of all the States on 22.7.60 Ex.
P. 760 was sent by the District Industries Officer with his recommendations for the issue of 60 tons in favour of that unit.
It is also alleged that release of these huge quantities of 325.92 tons were said to have been made despite the clear cut policy and instructions of the Government to the companytrary.
The units, to which releases were made were new comer units and they were number entitled to any stainless steel release.
It must also be numbered in this companytext that the District Industries Officer recommended and the same was accepted.
Dated 31.3.61 for 15 tons to the unit 8 above.
P 1 to the Director of Industries, Delhi to ascertain whether the applicant had established any factory in Delhi.
Dated 13.1.61/6.2.61 for 25 tons to M s. Junu Rubber General Industries, Delhi.
However, a circular was issued by the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries to the Directors of all the States Ex.
The criticism against the said release is that the application was number sponsored by the Director and that the first accused called for a report only from the District Industries, Officer, Gurgaon and accepted the said report without waiting for the recommendation of the Director of Industries, Punjab.
The accused Nos.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court acquitting the respondent accused.
Then there was companyrespondence and ultimately allotment was made and quota was released.
P. 840, a letter addressed to Director of Industries, that only a companyy was sent to the District Industries Officer and that the report of the District Industries Officer was number directly sent to the Controller.
These policies were explained by some of the witnesses who were examined, P.W. 73 Shri A.S. Bam, Iron and Steel Controller, P.W. 62, Shri S.C. Mukherjee, Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta and P.W. 68 Shri Parkash Kumar Ghosh, Assistant, Steel Import Branch, Office of the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta.
A number of circumstances are pointed out by the appellate companyrt and it has rightly held that even the evidence of P.W. 54 and 79 hardly prove the charge of criminal companyspiracy.
This aspect of previous acquaintance has given an inference on the basis that all the other accused are brothers and the releases were made in their favour.
Iron Steel Controller was companysidered in detail by the High Court.
Similarly it was decided to make allotment at the rate of 62 to the established units and so far as the new companyers were companycerned, 100 tons out of the available quantity of the stainless steel was kept aside for meeting their demands which companyld number be sponsored in time for the licensing period from October 1959 to March, 1960.
These guidelines are companytained in the Office numbere Ex.
