Madras HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Major General For Alleged Corruption In Ration Procurement During ‘Operation Pawan’ In Srilanka In 1987
The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of a Major General of the Army who had allegedly violated prescribed procedures, rules, and regulations during 'Operation Pawan' by illegally procuring ration items.
The Court noted that the investigating officer relied heavily on the testimonies of two other investigating officers (prosecution witnesses) and did not examine the evidence before filing the final report. The Court further held that the Trial Court erred in its decision by not considering substantial prosecution evidence.
Justice G. Jayachandran noted, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that, with truncated material and without scrutinising the materials placed in entirety, the Investigating Officer had filed the final report and had heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W-18 and P.W-19, who were the Investigating Officers in this case… The trial Court had held the appellant and other two accused guilty without giving reason why the evidence of prosecution been ignored when the witnesses admit that, the Meat Tinned Kheema were supplied and the price offered by M/s.Coasta and Company was the least. Since there was some discrepancies in the date of supply and the gate pass of M/s.Coasta and Company, the trial Court has inferred that to circumvent the withdrawal of permission to make local purchase, the documents were antedated. It is only a suspicion on presumption but not proved beyond doubt. The evidence for prosecution from Army side categorically admits that, some of the decisions are taken orally and cannot be revealed. Those decisions are not part of the file and unfortunately, the decisions and communications which find in the file also not been taken into consideration in entirety”.
Senior Advocate S Ashok Kumar appeared for the Appellant, and Special Public Prosecutor K Srinivasan appeared for the Respondent.
A Colonel filed a complaint alleging that the Appellant had violated prescribed procedures, rules, and regulations during 'Operation Pawan' of Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) troops in Sri Lanka. He contended that the Appellant was responsible for logistic support as Major General of the Army Service Corps and had favored certain firms during the transportation and procurement of supply/ration items, resulting in a significant loss to the state. Following a Court of Enquiry investigation, disciplinary action was initiated, and he was sent to face General Court Martial. However, he escaped from custody while being transported to Ahmadnagar with an escort. Due to his escape, the time to complete the Court Martial proceedings lapsed, and the case became time-barred to be tried by the Army Authorities. CBI took over the case and registered the complaint for offenses punishable under sections 120 B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 against five individuals. The Trial Court found the Appellant guilty, along with two others. A Criminal Appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the judgment of conviction and sentencing order.
The Court noted that the issue to ascertain was “whether the trial Court judgment survives the test of prudence and fair appreciation of evidence”.
The Court held that the Investigating Officer should have examined all the evidence before filing the final report. He relied heavily on the testimony of prosecution witnesses 18 and 19, who were also Investigating Officers. The Court also found that the Trial Court made a mistake by finding the Appellant guilty without explaining why they ignored significant prosecution evidence. There were discrepancies in the date of supply and gate pass, but the Trial Court could not prove the documents were antedated to avoid the withdrawal of permission to make local purchases.
The Court, while noting that the Appellant fled from custody during a Court-martial, held that there was no evidence to prove the charges beyond doubt, and even if there was, there was no loss to the government since the material was supplied and utilized. The Court also noted that the Appellant's long service to the nation, age, and health condition provided reason not to impose the minimum sentence prescribed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
Cause Title: Major General A.K.Gupta v. State
