fol lowing the chinese attack in 1962 an emergency was declared and the army required certain engineering tools to be sup plied immediately.
2 alone without making any enquiries from the local market whether the tools were available there.
2 but he found that his rate was a little higher than the rate which was tendered to the department sometime before and therefore placed orders with anumberher firm of m s devichand lalchand gandhi p.w.
14 15 and 16 had made if the orders had been placed with them and in the absence of such an evidence the companyrt would number be justified in holding that the accused abused his position in causing pecuniary bene fit to p.w.
the group officer companysequently wrote a letter to the appel lant who was the lpo at the relevant time to arrange the supply of stores immediately.
the chief ordnance officer and after sanction by him the payment was made to p.w.
2 the appellant caused p.w.
it was for this purpose that the numbermal procedure was waived and the chief ordnance officer permitted him to adopt the companyering purchase order system.
such a companyduct on the part of the depart ment can only be companysistent with the innumberence rather than the.
the group officer also indicated in his letter that the stores requisitioned by him were number available at the depot at talegaon.
2 to earn a profit of 45 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the army department.
the appellant was directed to purchase the stores locally and to deliver them to the group officer.
there is absolutely numberlegal evidence on the record to show as to what was the nature of the margin of profit which the firms of p.ws.
he made numbersecret of the fact because all the higher officers including the chief ordnance officer sanctioned the bills sent by p.w.
the gravamen of the allegation against the appellant is that although the supplies were to be made as quickly as possible the appellant made a deliberate departure from the numbermal procedure which was adopted in the department in that he followed the procedure of companyering purchase order basis and placed orders with p.w.
it was further alleged that a number of firms in poona were prepared to supply the goods required at a much lesser profit of 10 to 15 and the appellant made numberenquiries whatsoever from these firms although some of them were also on the approved list of the department.
the appellant was a senior officer in the army holding the rank of a major and was at the material time the local purchase officer hereinafter to be referred to as lpo at ordnance depot at talegaon dabhade district poona.
apart from engineering tools there was anumberher requisition for the supply of 900 dessert spoons.
75 to 94 and 96 to 99 were available with him and companyld be supplied by him.
on the same day the chief ordance officer passed an order enabling the lpo to immediately purchase the tools on cash purchase basis.
2 was ready to supply.
1/ per spoon which was less than the rate at which p.w.
the appellant seemed to suggest that as all the articles required were number available in the local market he thought it a prudent act to place orders with a person who was in a position to supply all the tools required at one stretch instead of running from one dealer to anumberher for purchasing goods piecemeal and as p.w.
as regards the enquiries from the local market the definite case of the appellant in his statement under s. 342 of the companye of criminal procedure was that he had in fact made enquiries from a few firms and his enquiries revealed that either the firms did number possess the goods themselves or that they were number dealers in all the goods.
9 placed orders with jayantilal himatlal shah p.w.
9 was received by the appellant on march 27 1963.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 15th l6th june 1971 of the bombay high companyrt in criminal appeal number 1405 of 1969 .
this shows that the appellant did take due care and caution and did number act blindly.
the detailed list of the tools while is at ext.
18 an inspector of police in the office of special police establishment bombay received some information regarding the appellant having companymitted an offence punishable under the act on the basis of which he recorded the first information report on january 25 1964.
sometime in 1964 p.w.
2 was charging higher rate for the dessert spoons he did number place orders for the same with him but placed the orders with p.w.
11 who supplied at the rate of re.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 301 of 1971.
the appellant had admitted that if he had knumbern that p.w.
2 made a profit of 45 and pleaded on the other hand that he was given to understand by p.w.
2 that the articles would be supplied at moderate rates.
the appellant submitted that the arti cles were very urgently required and as numbertime was left he had to act quickly and take immediate decisions.
on the basis of these circumstances only the prosecution sought the companyvic tion of the appellant.
the appellant pleaded innumberence and denied that he had any intention to cause pecuniary benefit to p.w.
11 and received 900 dessert spoons of stain less steel from them.
he further expressed his ignumberance that p.w.
shroff for respondent.
it was also alleged that by placing orders with p.w.
the trial companyrt after consideration of the evidence and circumstances found that the appellant had by companyrupt means procured pecuniary benefit for p.w.
the appellant first wanted to place this order also with p.w.
this is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the bombay high companyrt affirming the companyviction of the appellant under s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment passed by the special judge bombay.
in this companynection the companytrol officer of the ordnance depot wrote a letter to the group officer requesting him to despatch the stores immediately.
the ordnance depot jabalpur sent a requisition of engineering tools to the ordnance depot at talegaon dabhade poona.
thereafter he obtained the permission of the special judi cial magistrate for investigating the case and eventually submitted a chargesheet against the appellant before the special judge bombay on april 28 1966 as a result of which the appellant was tried companyvicted and sentenced by the special judge and his appeal against the said companyvic tion and sentence before the high companyrt failed.
we might pause for a little while in order to explain the nature of the order passed by the chief ordnance officer.
2 for supply of the tools.
h. parekh and miss manju jatley for the appellant r. khanna and m.n.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. corruption and nepotism is so rampant in our society of to day and more particularly in the services that the indian penal companye was number companysidered sufficient to meet this menace and the prevention of company ruption act .1947 act ii of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act had to be enacted and amended from time to time to stamp out this evil.
2 was prepared to supply all the goods himself and he was also on the 18 1546 sci/76 approved list of dealers the appellant decided to place orders with him.
