We have heard Mr. M.L. Varma, learned Senior companynsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.315/2011, Ms. Binu Tamta, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2011, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2011 and alsothe learned companynsel appearing for the State of Goa at length.
315 of 2011 Accused No.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
6 7 Companies.
1, only to benefit accused number.
Accused Nos.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused appellants are before us in these appeals.
312 of 2011 Accused No.
6 7 and favored the two Companies for availing 25 rebate on power tariff by illegal means and thereby caused huge loss of Rs.4,52,77,856/ to the exchequer of Government of Goa.
The said order reads thus The High Court by the impugned judgment has held that the circular dated 31st March, 1998 issued by the Government of Goa suspending the release of rebate with immediate effect as well as suspension of rebate agreed to be governed in sixty monthly installments has numberlegal efficacy and is, therefore, invalid.
1 as Minister of Power, with the companysent of Cabinet, issued another Notification dated 31 03 1995 cancelling the earlier Notification dated 30 09 1991 without assigning any reason for its cancellation.
311 of 2011 Accused No.
3 and 4 were Managing Director and Executive Director, respectively, of the appellant Company in Criminal Appeal 314 of 2011 Accused No.
2 was also a public servant at that time being Chief Electrical Engineer.
Afterwards, it is alleged that another Notification dated 15 5 1996 was issued, without approval of the Cabinet introducing another category of Extra High Tension power supply and after that one more Notification dated 01 08 1996 was issued, again without Cabinet approval, restoring the benefit of 25 rebate, at the instance of accused No.
Taking numbere of the allegations levelled against the accused, the Special Judge, Panaji by order dated 8 thDecember, 2006 framed charges against the accusedappellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC and also under Section 13 1 d i and 13 1 d ii read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Government of Goa, during the tenure of accused No.
Acting upon a companyplaint lodged by an M.L.A., the State levelled allegations against the accused individuals that by entering into a criminal companyspiracy they provided wrongful gains to both the appellant Companies Accused Nos.
6 , while the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
1 was the Minister of Power for the State of Goa during the period 22 12 1994 to 29 07 1998 whereas the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
315 of 2011 relying upon this Courts order in Civil Appeal Nos.
Learned senior companynsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
3206 3217 of 1999, passed on 13 th February, 2001 while dealing with the same Notifications, submitted that there is numberneed to companytinue further criminal proceedings against the appellants herein.
In a nutshell, the genesis of the dispute in all these appealspertains to a Notification dated 30 thSeptember, 1991 issued by the Government of Goa, duly approved by the Cabinet, according to which those industrial units who apply for bona fide use of High Tension or Low Tension power supply to their industrial units would be eligible for a rebate of 25 in their tariff for a period of five years.
V. RAMANA, J. These Criminal Appeals, by way of special leave, are filed by the appellants against a companymon order dated 26 th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Revision Application Nos.
