2025 (5) TMI 1742 - SC - Indian Laws

Short-term tender notices - Forged reports in the execution of Government work without publication of tenders - Non- fulfilment of procedure laid down for awarding tenders for benefitting a cartel of contractors by inflating the cost of tenders may satisfy the ingredients of criminal misconduct - Offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - scope of hearing at the time of framing of the charge - HELD THAT - There is no allegation made in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Therefore on a plain reading clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act will not be attracted. In this case there is no allegation that the appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification. There is no allegation that he had agreed or accepted any valuable thing or had dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him. Therefore the criminal misconduct as provided in Section 13(1) is not attracted in this case. That is how even the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not attracted. In short there was no case made out to proceed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. To this extent the impugned orders will have to be modified. Accordingly the order dated 15th February 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order dated 27th March 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are hereby modified and the direction to frame charge for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act is hereby set aside. The order of framing of charge for the offences under Section 409 and 468 of the IPC is maintained. We clarify that the observations made in this judgment are only for the purposes of considering the plea of discharge. The same will not bind the Trial Court at the time of the final hearing of the case. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed on the above terms.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

1. Whether there existed sufficient material to frame charges against the appellant under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on allegations of dishonestly inserting handwritten remarks above the signature of the Public Works Department Minister on tender documents to avoid publication of tenders.

2. Whether the appellant could be charged under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for criminal misconduct related to the tender process.

3. The scope and standard of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges, particularly the extent to which disciplinary inquiry findings and departmental proceedings impact criminal proceedings.

4. The applicability of the principle that criminal proceedings require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether exoneration in departmental inquiries precludes criminal prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Sufficiency of Material to Frame Charges under Sections 409 and 468 IPC

The relevant legal framework includes Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC. Section 409 punishes criminal breach of trust by a public servant, while Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC as making a false document or part thereof with intent to cause damage or injury to the public.

Precedents cited include the tests laid down in earlier Supreme Court decisions that at the charge framing stage, the Court examines only the material in the charge sheet and determines if there is sufficient ground to proceed, without delving into detailed evidence evaluation or cross-examination.

The Court considered the enquiry report, the CFSL forensic opinion matching the appellant's handwriting with the inserted notations, and the statement of the Public Works Department Minister denying any instruction to insert such remarks. The charge sheet alleged that the appellant dishonestly inserted the phrase "approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O" above the Minister's signature to create a false impression of ministerial approval.

Applying the law to the facts, the Court held that the material prima facie established the ingredients of forgery and criminal breach of trust. The documents were entrusted to the appellant, and the unauthorized insertion of words constituted dishonest conduct. The CFSL report and the Minister's testimony, uncontroverted at this stage, supported the framing of charges.

Competing arguments raised by the appellant regarding the urgency of the works and prior departmental approval were noted but held to be matters for trial. The Court emphasized that at the charge framing stage, it is not to sift evidence but to see if a grave suspicion exists.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the framing of charges under Sections 409 and 468 IPC.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

Section 13(1)(d) criminalizes criminal misconduct by a public servant who, by corrupt or illegal means, obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for self or others, or abuses position to obtain such advantage, or obtains any valuable thing without public interest.

The Court noted that the chargesheet did not allege that the appellant obtained any pecuniary advantage or valuable thing for himself or others. There was no allegation of acceptance or agreement to accept gratification, misappropriation, or conversion of property for personal use.

Given the absence of these essential ingredients, the Court concluded that the offence under Section 13(1)(d) and consequently Section 13(2) of the PC Act was not attracted.

The Court modified the impugned orders to set aside the framing of charges under the PC Act provisions but maintained the charges under the IPC.

Issue 3: Scope of Judicial Scrutiny at Charge Framing and Impact of Departmental Proceedings

The Court reiterated settled principles governing the scope of hearing at the charge framing stage under Sections 226 and 227 CrPC. Only the material in the charge sheet is to be considered, and the Court must determine if there is a prima facie case to proceed. The Court cannot weigh evidence or cross-examine witnesses at this stage.

The appellant relied on exoneration in departmental inquiry proceedings. The Court clarified that disciplinary proceedings have a different scope and standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities) compared to criminal proceedings (proof beyond reasonable doubt). Therefore, findings in departmental inquiries do not preclude criminal prosecution.

The Court emphasized that the outcome of disciplinary proceedings is irrelevant to the question of framing charges in criminal cases.

Issue 4: Standard of Proof and Reliance on Departmental Inquiry

The appellant cited precedents holding that the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases should prevent proceeding based on departmental findings. However, the Court distinguished the two standards and reaffirmed that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar criminal trial where prima facie material exists.

The Court noted that the criminal trial would afford the appellant full opportunity to contest the allegations and prove innocence.

Significant Holdings

"If the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will not discharge the accused."

"Considering the allegations made in the charge sheet and the report of the CFSL, a case is made out to proceed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC."

"If we take the statements of the witnesses and, in particular, the Hon'ble Minister as it is, a case was made out to proceed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC."

"There is no allegation made in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Therefore, on a plain reading, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act will not be attracted."

"The outcome of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be examined, and what needs to be examined is the material forming part of the chargesheet."

"The order of framing charge for the offences under Section 409 and 468 of the IPC is maintained. The direction to frame charge for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act is, hereby, set aside."

In sum, the Court confirmed the framing of charges for forgery and criminal breach of trust based on prima facie material, but excluded charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of essential ingredients. The Court clarified the limited role of judicial scrutiny at the charge framing stage and the non-impact of departmental inquiry findings on criminal proceedings.