LawforAll

▼
Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Section 420 IPC, 120B IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’) - Purchase of Damp Proof cement at higher rate in collusion with company by department servants causing huge loss to NEHU - complaint - CBI registered the case and filed charge sheet - trial court convicted A 1 and acquitted rest of accused - on appeal - High court reversed the acquittal and convicted the Accused No.4 also - who filed appeal - pending appeal - he has under gone imprisonment for considerable period - A 1 died but his Lrs prosecuting his appeal - Apex court held that first accused, Chief Engineer being Technical Member of the Purchase Committee, it was his duty to advise the Purchase Committee about the then prevailing market rate of DPC to enable NEHU to purchase DPC at the market rate. The first accused was primarily responsible for the commission of the offence and the first accused by abusing his position as Chief Engineer and Technical Member got the inflated rate of DPC at Rs.42.75 per kg approved when the same was available in the local market at price ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/- per kg. and A-1 obtained pecuniary advantage to himself and also to accused 4 and 5 and caused wrongful loss to NEHU to the tune of Rs.49 lacs. The first accused was rightly convicted under Sections 120B IPC and 420 IPC and also under Section 5(2)(d) of the PC Act. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the extent of loss caused to the NEHU, the High Court rightly enhanced the sentence of imprisonment imposed for various offences for which the first accused was convicted and we find no reason to interfere with the same. So far as the fourth accused is concerned, he was also convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients: “deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property”. In collusion with first accused, the fourth accused quoted and supplied DPC at an inflated rate of Rs.42.75 per kg, fourth accused dishonestly induced NEHU to purchase DPC. Fourth accused has taken stand that he did not know the then prevalent market rate of DPC at Shillong. As a supplier and also dealing with DPC, it is incomprehensible that the fourth accused did not know the prevalent market rate. The High Court rightly negatived the defence version and convicted the fourth accused under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. taking into consideration of his age and taking into consideration of payment of amount of Rs. Rs.3,50,000/- and further directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- treating his imprisonment as set off as the case is pending for 3 decades = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 553/2011) EDMUND S LYNGDOH …Appellant Versus STATE OF MEGHALAYA …Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41915

›
  Section 420 IPC, 120B IPC and Section 5(2)  of  Prevention  of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short ‘the  P.C.  Act’) - Purchase of Damp proof...

sec.12 of court fee Act and sec.148 of C.P.C - court fee - non payment - DCF can be cured -yes- Amendment of plaint with two reliefs - decree passed - in appeal it was pointed out no court fee was paid on two reliefs and as such suit is liable to be dismissed - first appellant court rejected the plea and granted time to make deficiency of court fee the good - writ - High court reversed the order of first appellant court holding that appellant court can not do it - Apex court held that there was no order by the trial court directing the plaintiffs to make good the deficit court-fee within a particular time. the High Court, overlooked well known legal position that appeal is continuation of suit and the power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court. It failed to bear in mind that what could be done by the trial court in the proceeding of the suit, can always be done by the appellate court in the interest of justice.and the High Court failed to consider clause (ii) of Section 12 of 1870 Act and as such set aside the high court order and upheld the order of first appellant court = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8660 OF 2014 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 9042 OF 2013] |SARDAR TAJENDER SINGH GHAMBHIR AND ANOTHER |...|APPELLANT(s) | | Versus | |SARDAR GURPREET SINGH & OTHERS |... |RESPONDENT(s) |= 2014- Sept. month- http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41943

›
sec.12 of court fee Act and sec.148 of C.P.C - court fee - non payment - DCF can be cured -yes-  Amendment of plaint with two reliefs - dec...