The Supreme Court has set aside corruption charges against an Ex-Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, Porvorim, Goa, while maintaining the order framing charges for criminal breach of trust & forgery. The Apex Court noted that there was no allegation that the accused agreed to accept or accepted any gratification.

The appellant had challenged the order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application. The appellant had challenged the order framing charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “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.”

AOR B. K. Pal represented the Appellant, while Advocate Abhay Anil Anturkar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint was received by the Chief Minister of Goa and Chief Vigilance Officer of Goa, containing allegations about 19 short tender notices comprising 847 numbers of water supply works in the Works Division XVII (PHE-N), Public Works Department, Porvorim, Goa. It was alleged that the tender notices were not published in newspapers as required by the Central Public Works Department Manual. It was also alleged that some works were unnecessarily split without any valid justification, and the works were allotted to the same party or their cronies.

The works were quoted 4.8% to 14.95% above their estimated cost, and for most works, only two bidders had quoted bids, which indicated that the Government did not get the benefit of competitive bidding and caused a loss to the Government. The enquiry report revealed that the appellant was working as an Executive Engineer at the relevant division of the Public Works Department. The enquiry report concluded that the appellant, after approvals from the aforesaid authorities, inserted in his handwriting “approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O” just above the signature of the then Public Works Department Minister on each document, to project as if it was an instruction from the Minister himself.

A criminal case was registered and after obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Respondent filed the chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant’s application for discharge under Sections 226 and 227 of the CrPC came to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji. His revision application was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Explaining the law relating to the scope of hearing at the time of framing of the charge, the Bench observed that at this stage, the Court can examine only the documents forming part of the charge sheet, and no other material can be considered. Secondly, after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the appellant. At this stage, the Court cannot sift the evidence forming a part of the chargesheet to separate the grain from the chaff. If the Court is of the view that the evidence without cross-examination or rebuttal shows that the accused has not committed any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed. Lastly, if the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will not discharge the accused. “Therefore, at this stage, the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be examined, and what needs to be examined is the material forming part of the chargesheet”, it stated.

The Bench explained that as per Section 463, whoever makes any false document or part of a document with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public commits forgery. Considering the allegations made in the charge sheet and the report of the CFSL, a case was made out to proceed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC.

In light of the fact that the reports/documents signed by the Minister were entrusted to the appellant and the allegation that he dishonestly inserted the portion quoted above the signature of the Minister, the Bench said, “...taking the case of the prosecution as it is, even the offence under Section 409 is also attracted. 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.”

Coming to the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Bench noted that clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act would not be attracted as there was no allegation that the appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification. “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”, the Bench said.

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “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.”

Cause Title: K. H. Kamaladini v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 745)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR B. K. Pal

Respondent: Advocates Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, AOR Surbhi Kapoor, Advocates Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande, Subhi Pasto

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.