All the said appeals arose out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising the powers of Special Judge, companyvicting and sentencing the appellants.
Coming to the circumstantial evidences sought to be relied on by the prosecution, the High Court has held that the prosecution, in all the said cases, produced a number of witnesses to prove that although vouchers had been prepared in the name of the said witnesses, they had neither worked on such projects number did they receive any payment.
Such companyplaint was processed and in due companyrse in April, 1972, the Minister companycerned ordered Superintending Engineer vigilance Shri R. Saini, of public works Department to enquire into the allegations.
The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that there was numberdirect evidence against the accused persons who were appellants before the High Court in support of the charges levelled against the accused and the prosecution has relied only upon circumstantial evidence.
Shri Kailash Chand was the Superintending Engineer and Shri Kuldip Singh Sidhu was the Executive Engineer companycerning the said projects.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.
The Special Judge after companysidering the evidence adduced in the case companyvicted and sentenced all the accused under Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477 A and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and passed various sentences for the said offences as referred to in the judgment of the learned trial Judge.
Shri Saini thereafter visited the sites of all the six projects and submitted his reports indicating that ambezzlement of huge amount by the officials companycerned had taken place in implementing the said projects.
The High Court has, however, held that the testimony of those witnesses had lost its value because it was number possible to companye to a companyclusion that they were the same persons in whose names the vouchers were prepared.
12 21 OF 1986.
Under the instruction of Government of India, the Development Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Punjab apprised all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Punjab about such Scheme.
The prosecution also prepared the list of the labourers whose names were mentioned in the vouchers but according to the prosecution a number of such persons did number reside within a radius of five miles from the site of work.
22 28/86 AND 1 11/86 Inderjit Singh and others etc.
For implementing the said crash scheme, six projects were started by the Public Works Department drainage Section in the district of Amritsar.
The amounts allotted to each of the six projects were expected to be spent by the end of the financial year.
The said scheme was centrally companytrolled scheme in the shape of grant in aid.
THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present Honble Mr.Justice G.N.Ray Honble Mr.Justice Faizan Uddin Mr.Ram Jethmalani, and Mr.D.V.Sehgal, Sr.
The prosecution case in short is that the Government of India initiated a crash scheme of rural employment to give relief in the rural areas by executing some intensive projects to give employment in all the districts in the State of Punjab.
The accused, however, in their statements made under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the charges and pleaded innocence.
Executive Engineer, was stated to be the man incharge of all these projects.
Amongst the accused in the Criminal cases instituted on the basis of the said I.Rs, Shri K.S.Sidhu.
Over and above, a sum of rupees two and a half lacs were also allowed for implementing the said scheme.
These six projects were meant to desilt six drains, namely, Sakki Nullah, Kasur Nullah, Sohal Drain, Jhabal Drain, Kairon Drain and Devi Dass Pura Drain.
The other accused persons were Sub Divisional Officers, Sectional Officers, Sub Divisional Clerks.
As the facts and circumstances were similar in all the said 28 appeals, they were disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by a companymon judgment.
M s.Kamini Jaiswal, Arvind Nigam, Abani Kumar Sahu, Rekha Palli, Monica Goswamy, Advs.
A.Nos.22 28/86 Mr.Ujagar Singh, M s.Amita Gupta, R.S.Suri, Naresh Bakshi, Ranjit Kumar, Advs.
March 31, 1972.
appellants Versus State of Punjab Others respondents J U D G M E N T N.Ray.
The accused were eventually tried in six separate trials relating to each of the said projects by a Special Judge appointed by the State Government under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Before this Court also all the above 28 appeals have been heard analogously and they are being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
One Chanchal Singh of village Jhabal filed a companyplaint to the Chief Engineer drainage alleging that although huge amounts were reportedly spent on desilting Jhabal Drain out actually numberhing had been done at the spot.
Under the terms of the said crash scheme, for each district, ten lacs of rupees were allocated.
Advs.,
On the basis of such report, investigations were companyducted by the Vigilance Bureau and after the companypletion of investigations, six first information reports were registared in July, 1973, pertaining to all the six projects.
with him for the appellants.
for the Respondents.
for the appellants in Crl.
J. These twenty eight criminal appeals are directed against a companymon judgment dated May 15, 1985 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos.153 SB to 156 SB, 161 SB, 174 SB to 178 SB, 185 SB to 189 SB, 193 SB to 196 SB, 199 SB to 202 SB and 205 SB to 207 SB of 1983 and two Criminal Revisions Nos.773 and 774 of 1983 since treated as appeals by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
