Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State (Through A.C.B) on 28 July, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 24th April, 2025
Pronounced on: 28th July, 2025
+ CRL.A. 1238/2015
SANJAY KUMAR JAIN
S/o Shri Darshan Lai Jain,
R/o 48/11, MCD Flats,
Bunglow Road, Delhi. ....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.S. Kohli, Mr. Yash Kadyan,
Ms. Mannat Kohli & Mr. Raghav
Kaushik, Advocates
Versus
STATE (THROUGH A.C.B) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
State with Insp. Bharat
+ CRL.A. 1254/2015
C B SINGH
S/o Shri Jhamman Singh,
R/o D-831A, Gali No. 3,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.S. Kohli, Mr. Yash Kadyan,
Ms. Mannat Kohli & Mr. Raghav
Kaushik, Advocates
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
State with Insp. Bharat
+ CRL.A. 1255/2015
S N GOEL
S/o Shri S. C. Goel,
R/o F-26/69, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.S. Kohli, Mr. Yash Kadyan,
Ms. Mannat Kohli & Mr. Raghav
Kaushik, Advocates
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 1 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
Versus
STATE (THROUGH CBI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
State with Insp. Bharat
+ CRL.A. 239/2016
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
State with Insp. Bharat
Versus
1. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
S/o Sh. B.S.GUPTA
R/o 26/87, SHAKTI NAGAR,
DELHI- 110007
2. SATYA NARAYAN GOEL
S/o SH. S.C.GOEL
R/o F-26/69, SECTOR -7,
ROHINI, DELHI --110085
3. SANJAY KUMAR JAIN
S/o SH. DARSHAN LAL JAIN
R/o 48/6, MCD FLATS,
BUNGLOW ROAD, DELHI --110007
4. CHANDRA BHAN SINGH
SH. JHAMMAN SINGH
R/o D-83 1A, GALl NO.3,
ASHOK NAGAR, DELHI --110093 .....Respondents
Through: Mr. D.S. Kohli, Mr. Yash Kadyan,
Ms. Mannat Kohli & Mr. Raghav
Kaushik, Advocates for R-2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 2 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
1. The aforesaid 03 Appeals arise from the Judgment dated 29.10.2015
whereby the Appellants-Sanjay Kumar Jain, C.B. Singh, S.N. Goel have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to
as the “P.C. Act“) and Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC“); and the Order on
Sentence dated 02.11.2015 whereby the 03 Appellants have been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for 02 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- under
Sections13(1)(d) and 13(2) IPC while they have been sentenced to 02 years
RI along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, each for the offence punishable under
Sections 420/120B IPC.
2. The Criminal Appeal No. 239/2016 has been filed by the State for
enhancement of the sentence awarded to the 03 Appellants.
3. Briefly stated two Work Orders, namely, Work Order No. 186 dated
10.07.1998 for repair of road in F-Block, Shastri Nagar in CLZ, SH: M/P
near F-1 to F-16 and F-47 to Nag Mandir Road for Rs.33,569/- and Work
Order No. 535 dated 24.12.1998 for repair of road in Shehzada Bagh in C-
120/CLZ, SH: Imp by patch repair on Subhdara Colony to Indralok in C-
120, CLZ for Rs.1,55,000/-, were awarded to M/s Universal Sanitary
Emporium, Delhi of which Ashok Kumar Gupta was the sole Proprietor.
4. According to the Work Orders, the Contractor Ashok Kumar Gupta
was required to use fresh Bitumen purchased from Bharat Petroleum/Indian
Oil/Hindustan Petroleum as approved by Engineer-in-Chief. It was to be
arranged by the Contractor and the fresh receipt in original in proof thereof,
was to be submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 3 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
5. The case of the Prosecution was that Ashok Kumar Gupta, the
Contractor used substandard unauthorised Bitumen for execution of the
Work Orders. The Appellants- S.N. Goel, Junior Engineer (JE), Sanjay
Kumar Jain, Assistant Engineer (AE) and C.B. Singh, Executive Engineer
(EE), respectively in Division No. XVI, Civil Lines Zone, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD), entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s
Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi through its Proprietor Ashok Kumar
Gupta, and passed the bills and released the payments to Ashok Kumar
Gupta thereby causing pecuniary gain to him and loss to MCD in discharge
of their official duties by corrupt means. By clearing the bills of Rs.1.75
Lacs without any Invoices from authorised Oil Company of Government of
India, these bills were passed and payments released to Ashok Kumar Gupta
dishonestly by the 03 Officers of MCD; thereby they all committed offence
punishable under Sections 420/120B IPC and also committed offence
punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act.
6. On completion of investigations, Chargesheet was filed in the Trial
Court. Charges were accordingly, framed on 08.04.2011 against the
Appellants punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC
Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC.
7. Prosecution examined total 22 Prosecution witnesses in support of its
case.
8. PW-1 ASI K.L. Meena registered the FIR Ex. PW-1/A.
9. PW-3 ACP Rajender Singh Manku deposed about the registration of
FIR against the Appellants and Ashok Kumar Gupta on the basis of
information received from reliable sources. Investigations were duly carried
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 4 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
out and the requisite information and statement of the witnesses were
recorded.
10. PW-6 Pradeep Sharma, the Tender Clerk in the year 1998-99 proved
the copy of the Work Order No. 186 dated 10.07.1998 along with the bills,
which were Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B, collectively.
11. PW-7 Narender Kumar Sharma, the Tender Clerk in the year 1998-
99 proved the copy of the Work Order No. 535 dated 24.12.1998 along with
the bills, which were Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B, collectively.
12. PW-8 HC Krishna Dasan deposited the exhibits/signature samples of
the Appellants in FSL, Rohini.
13. PW-9 Vinay Kumar Tyagi was the witnesses to the signature samples
of the Appellants taken by the IO.
14. PW-10 Loknath Sahu was the witness to the arrest of the Appellants.
15. PW-11 Khazan Singh, the Accounts Clerk/UDC produced the copy
of the Work Order No. 186 dated 10.07.1998 and Work Order No. 535 dated
24.12.1998, which were exhibited as Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B and
Ex.PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B, respectively. PW-12 Nirmal Bansal, Audit
Officer deposed that the Work Orders were opened on 06.05.1998 and the
tender file bears his signatures. PW-13 Ramesh Kumar Behl, Accountant in
MCD in the year 1998-99, deposed that the Work Orders Ex. PW-6/A and
Ex. PW-6/B and Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B bear his signatures. He also
testified that he was shown the Measurement Book (MB) registered Ex.
PW-13/A and MB Book Ex. PW-13/B, which bears his signatures on the
passing of the bills as an Accountant.
16. PW-14 Rajni Narula produced the posting Orders of the Appellants
Sanjay Kumar Jain and C.B. Singh as Ex.PW-14/A and Ex.PW-14/B and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 5 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
that of S.N. Goel as Ex.PW-14/D. PW-15 Anand Singh Chauhan produced
the posting and transfer Orders of S.N. Goel, which are Ex.PW-15/A and
Ex.PW-15/B, respectively.
17. PW-16 Sajjan Kumar, Chief Refinery Coordinator (CRC) in Mathura
Oil Refinery deposed that letter Ex.PW-16/B was received in his office from
Insp. S.S. Sandhu seeking information as to whether M/s Universal Sanitary
Emporium, Delhi had purchased Bitumen from their refinery for execution
of Work Orders No. 186 and 585 during the period 10.07.1998 to
31.03.1999. The reply Ex.PW-16/A was given stating that on verification of
the records, no such customer master was found. Thus, as per their record,
no supply of Bitumen had been made from their refinery to M/s Universal
Sanitary Emporium, Delhi.
18. PW-17 Pushkar Raj, Head Clerk, Vigilance Department, MCD
handed over the files of Tender and Accounts of two Work Orders to the IO,
which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-17/A.
19. PW-18 K.S. Mehra, accorded sanctions for prosecution of the 03
Appellants.
20. PW-19 Ashok Drabu, who was posted as Executive Engineer in
MCD, on 20.07.2004, deposed that pursuant to the letter of IO, he forwarded
Original MB/Register No. 1766 Ex.PW-13/A and MB/Register No. 1769
Ex.PW-13/B pertaining to Work Orders No. 254/257 dated 07.08.1998 and
Work Order No. 535 dated 24.12.1998 to the IO vide forwarding letter
Ex.PW-19/A.
21. PW-20 S.S. Sandhu was the IO, who had conducted the
investigations by collecting the requisite documents and recording of the
statements. PW-21 SI Kirori Lal Meena and PW-22 Insp. Santosh Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 6 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
Singh were the subsequent IO, who conducted the investigations and
thereafter, filed the Chargesheet in the Court.
22. The statement of the Appellants were also recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which, they denied all the incriminating evidence. They
examined 05 witnesses in their defence.
23. DW-1 Pradip Kapoor who was posted as Technical Officers in the
year 1998-1999 has deposed as to the quality of the material used and the
required tests conducted in the MCD Lab. DW-2 Ram Niwas, who was
posted as LDC, Maintenance deposed regarding the Bill register pertaining
to the year 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 of Appellant CB Singh. DW-3 J.B.
Bhatia who retired as Executive Engineer had deposed with regards to the
technical specifications of the projects. DW-4 S. Venkataramanan who was
posted as Accounts officer has deposed with regards to the record pertaining
to difference of pay of Appellant CB Singh. DW-5 Kiran Sharma, who was
posted as Head Clerk has deposed with regards to the Pay Bill Register for
the Appellant SB Singh.
24. The Ld. Special Judge considered the entire Prosecution evidence and
concluded that the Prosecution had successfully proved that the Bitumen of
the quality specified in the Work Order, had not been used by Ashok Kumar
Gupta, Contractor despite which the payment of the submitted Bills, was
cleared by the Appellants, who were the JE, AE and EE, respectively in the
MCD Department and thereby convicted them under the charged Sections
and also sentenced them accordingly.
25. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the aforesaid three Appeals have
been preferred by the Appellants wherein the conviction and sentence has
been challenged on the grounds that the Judgment dated 29.10.2015 is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 7 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
based on inferences and presumptions and not on any cogent evidence.
Pertinently, the alleged incriminating evidence have not even been put to the
Appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which has caused serious prejudice to
them. The requirement of sanctions under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has also been
ignored as the law mandates that the sanctions be granted only if the facts
alleged against public servant, has nexus to the discharge of their official
duties.
26. The Prosecution has failed to justify the basis on which it has been
concluded that wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.1.75 Lacs has been caused
to MCD when in fact the total bill value, which stood released to the
Contractor was of Rs.1,77,662/-, out of which the tentative cost of Bitumen
was Rs.39,275/-. No basis has been given on which it has been concluded
that a loss of Rs.1.75 Lacs, was caused.
27. Furthermore, it has emerged in the evidence that it was not the duty of
the Appellants to pass the Bills or in any manner, require the release of the
payment to the Contractor. In the absence of any cogent evidence,
conviction of the Appellants for committing misconduct in permitting
passing of Bills or release of payments, is unjustified.
28. The Ld. Special Judge has committed a grave illegality in holding that
the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the IO before the registration of
the case. It is asserted that bare perusal of Ex.PW-3/A, exposes the frivolity
of the version of the informant; in fact, the manner in which false averments
have been made during the cross-examination, the Appellant has been
successfully impeached the creditworthiness of the witnesses. The Ld.
Special Judge was unjustified in returning or finding the guilt of the
Appellants, which is contrary to the settled principles of law.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 8 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
29. It is submitted that the evidence of the Prosecution was required to be
meticulously examined, which the Ld. Special Judge has failed to do. The
findings of guilt as returned by the Ld. Trial Court are completely
unsubstantiated by any document or ocular evidence.
30. There is no offence proved by the Prosecution against the
Appellants and they are entitled to be acquitted.
31. The Prosecution in the Status Report has reiterated the investigations
carried out by IO and also that the Appellants have been rightly convicted
and sentenced for the offences. It is accordingly prayed that the present
Appeal be dismissed.
32. The written submissions have also been filed on similar lines as the
grounds raised in the Appeal. Reliance has been placed on Central Bureau
of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512,
wherein, the Apex Court has observed that an offence of conspiracy cannot
be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or
inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.
Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in P.K. Narayanan v. State
of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142 and Sherimon v. State of Kerala AIR 2012 SC
493.
33. Reliance has also been placed on State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and
Anr. (2000) 8 SCC 203, wherein the Apex Court has observed that for
proving the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is important to show that all
means adopted and illegal acts done, were in furtherance of the object of
conspiracy hatched.
34. The Appellants has also placed reliance on P. Sirajuddin etc v. State
of Madras (AIR 1971 SC 520), wherein in was observed that whenever a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 9 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
public servant is charged with the acts of dishonestly which amounts to
serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type of alleged in the case of
first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable
Preliminary Enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The same
has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of
Sikkim, AIR 2011 SC 1363.
35. Reliance has also been placed on State of Goa v. Babu Thomas, 2005
(8) SCC 130, wherein the Apex Court has held that Sanction issued by the
incompetent Authority is a fundamental error which invalidates the
cognizance as without jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this
Court in G.S. Matharoo v. CBI, Crl M.C. 2695/2010. Similar reliance has
also been placed on C.B.I. v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2014 CRI.L.J. 930
and Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0788/2015.
36. The State in its Appeal No. 239/2016 has sought enhancement of
the sentence on the ground that the Appellants are public servant, who are
found guilty of misuse of their Office position in conspiracy to case
pecuniary gain to the Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta. It has not been
appreciated that huge loss has been caused to MCD/public at large.
37. Reference has been made to State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shambhu
Dayal, (2006) 8 SCC 693 wherein it had been noted that the corruption
committed by the public servants has become a gigantic problem. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court in State vs. Vishal S Yadav & Anr., in Cr.
Appeal no. 958/2008, observed that sentencing justice is the facet of social
justice, even as redemption of a crime-doer in the aspect of restoration of a
whole personality.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 10 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
38. Reliance has also been placed on Shyam Narain vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77 wherein it has been emphasized that it has to be
borne in mind that primarily sentencing for an offence has a social goal. It
must make the Accused realise that the crime committed by him, has not
only created a dent in his life but also a concavity in the social fabric.
39. Likewise, the Apex Court in Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 2 SCC 359, held that in operating the sentencing system,
law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual
matric. Similar observations have been made in Gopal Singh vs. State of
Uttrakahand, (2013) 7 SCC 545, Sevaka Perumal vs. State of T.N, (1991) 3
SCC 471, Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana & Ors. in Criminal Appeal no.
1049-1050 of 2015, State of Chattisgarh vs. Bhugdev & Ors, 2001 (3)
MPHT 116 CG.
40. It is, therefore, prayed that the sentence as awarded to the 03
Appellants may be enhanced.
41. Submissions heard and the record perused.
42. This case indeed is indeed intriguing as it has its genesis in the
information received through „reliable sources‟ on 25.05.2004 by ACP
Rajender Singh Manku, who was Inspector in Anti Corruption Branch, that
M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi had been awarded two Work
Orders of a total amount of Rs.2 Lacs in the year 1998 by the Engineers,
Division XVI of MCD, Delhi wherein as per the terms and conditions of the
Work Order, Contractor was to purchase fresh Bitumen from one of the
authorized oil companies of Government of India and the fresh Receipts in
original were to be submitted to the Department as proof of purchase.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 11 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
However, no such Receipt of any order was placed on record thereby
reflecting that the Bitumen of specified standard had not been utilized.
43. M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi submitted bills of Rs.1.75
Lacs without any documentary proof, which was cleared by the Government
officials of MCD by abusing their official position and causing pecuniary
benefit to the Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta.
44. Consequently, the present FIR was registered against the 03
Appellants namely, Sanjay Kumar Jain, SN Goel and CB Singh as well as
Ashok Kumar Gupta, Proprietor, M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi.
45. The first striking fact is that the information was received after about
six years in the year 2004 for the work completed in the year 1998-99. There
was no cogent basis on which the said allegations were made and were not
supported apparently by any document as the same have not been placed on
record by PW-3 ACP Rajender Singh Manku, who got the FIR Ex.PW-1/A
registered through PW-1 ASI K.L. Meena, the duty Officer.
46. Though PW-3 ACP Rajender Singh Manku in his testimony has
claimed that prima facie cognizable offence of cheating and abuse of the
official position of the MCD officials were made out, but it not
understandable as to how and on the basis of some uncorroborated
information, after about six years, , the PW-3 got this insight of registering
the FIR in the first place.
47. He in his cross-examination, states that he made enquiry prior to
registration of the case, but such alleged enquiry does not find its way to the
Chargesheet and is not placed on record. He further admits that he did not
conduct any physical verification of the fact as to whether the roads for
which contract was given, were laid, he was also not able to state if there
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 12 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
was any Complaint in regard to the executed work. He himself did not
verify whether Bitumen was used at the site or not. He also did not find out
the process or manner in which Bitumen was to be received at the end of
MCD. He also did not come across any Measurement Book during his
enquiry, despite being aware that such MBs are maintained by MCD. He
was also unable to state if during his enquiry, he came across the Laboratory
Test carried out by the Department for the quality and quantity of Bitumen
used in the laying of roads.
48. It is clearly evident from his testimony that though firstly he claimed
that there was a reliable source through which he got the information about
improper release of money to the Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta for the
work done about 06 years back but secondly, his alleged enquiry was also an
eyewash as he never did anything to first confirm even prima facie any truth
in the allegation before getting the FIR registered. Clearly, there was no
authentic information or any evidence even prima facie to show that the
Work Orders were not executed by Ashok Kumar Gupta in accordance with
the terms of the Work Orders. Be that as it may, the case of the Prosecution
may be considered on its own merits.
49. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that M/s Universal Sanitary
Emporium, Delhi through its Proprietor Ashok Kumar Gupta, was awarded
two Work Orders for execution of road work for a total amount of Rs.2 Lacs
in the year 1998 by the Division XVI of MCD. The details of the two Work
Orders are as under: –
S. No. Work Order Name of the Work
with date
1. 186 dated R/R cut made by MTNL Deptt. In F-Block,
10.07.1998 Shastri Nagar in C-120/CLZ Sh. M/P near
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 13 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
F-1 to F-16 and F-47 to Nag Mandir Road.
2. 535 dated R/R cut made by MTNL Deptt. In
24.12.1998 Shahzada Bagh in C-120/CLZ Sh. Imp to
Road by patch repair on Subhadra Colony
to Inderlok in C-120/CLZ.
50. The two Work Orders No. 186 dated 10.07.1998 and Work Order No.
535 dated 24.12.1998, Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B, respectively have been
proved by PW-6 Pradeep Kumar, Tender Clerk and PW-7 ACP Narender
Kumar Sharma, Tender Clerk, respectively.
51. As per the terms and conditions of the Work Orders, the Contractor,
Ashok Kumar Gupta was to purchase fresh Bitumen from one of the
authorized oil companies of Government of India viz. IOC, HP and BP.
Further, the conditions stated that the fresh receipt in original be submitted
to the Department of MCD as proof of purchase of fresh Bitumen from any
of the authorized Companies.
52. According to the Prosecution, there was cheating done by Ashok
Kumar Gupta insomuch as he failed to use fresh Bitumen for the road repair
as was specifically provided under the Work Orders. The sole basis for
claiming cheating, conspiracy and misconduct are that the Bitumen used
was not as per the specification of the Tender. Further allegations of the
Prosecution were that no Receipts were produced by Contractor, Ashok
Kumar Gupta about him having purchased fresh Bitumen from any of the
authorized Company of Government of India in proof thereof, was furnished
to the MCD, despite which the 03 Appellants in conspiracy with him,
cleared his bills amounting to Rs.1.75 Lacs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 14 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
53. The sole material witness for proving this fact is PW-16 Sajjan
Kumar, DGM, IOCL, Bombay. He has deposed that on 24.06.2004, he was
posted as Chief Refinery Coordinator (CRC) in Mathura Refinery Terminal,
Mathura and a Letter dated 15.06.2004 Ex. PW-16/B was received from the
PW 20 Inspector S.S. Sandhu, IO requiring a confirmation as to whether
“M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi had purchased any quantity of
Bitumen from your Oil Refinery between 10.07.1998 and 31.01.1998 or
otherwise”. If so, the details of the same along with the copies of relevant
Cash Memos or Gate Pass be supplied to his Office through the bearer of
the Letter.
54. The Reply dated 24.06.2004 Ex. PW-16/A was given by PW-16
wherein it was stated that as the matter pertains to the period 19.07.1998 to
31.03.1999, and extensive checking of the record room, was required. On
verification of the available records pertaining to this period, it was noticed
that no such customer by the name of M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium,
Delhi was available in their Customer Master (sic). This response led PW-
20 S.S. Sandhu to conclude that no supply of Bitumen had been made to the
above party from out Refinery Terminal of IOCL.
55. PW-16 in his cross-examination, admitted that he cannot say
regarding the status of M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi and
whether it was a Proprietorship concern or a Company. He made certain
pertinent admissions that he was also not able to say if Invoice No. 0167348
was the Invoice vide which Bitumen was supplied by IOC to the customer as
this number was not reflected in the aforesaid Letter Ex.PW-16/B.
56. What thus, emerges is that the PW 20 Insp. S.S. Sandhu, IO, during
the investigations, had tried to confirm if the fresh Bitumen had been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 15 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
purchased in the year 1998-99 by Ashok Kumar Gupta through IOCL for
which purpose, he wrote the letter Ex. PW-16/B. Interestingly, as has also
emerged from the cross-examination of Ex. PW-16, the Letter merely
sought a confirmation that if any fresh Bitumen during the relevant period,
was sold to M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium, Delhi.Admittedly, the
Invoice number with which PW-16 Sajjan Kumar was confronted, was
never indicated in the said Letter.
57. The only fact which emerges from the testimony of PW-16 Sajjan
Kumar is that no Bitumen was supplied to the Proprietorship Firm but was
not in a position to say if it was given in the individual name of Contractor
Ashok Kumar Gupta. The surest way to disprove that the fresh Bitumen was
not supplied to him was to confirm whether the Invoice was in fact, issued
in the name of Ashok Kumar Gupta or whether the said Invoice was a
genuine document pertaining to the IOCL. Neither there has been any
verification sought of the Invoice number nor has the same been provided.
In the absence of there being no evidence to confirm the authenticity of the
Invoice Bill, there can be no presumption that no fresh Bitumen was
purchased by Ashok Kumar Gupta for execution of the two Work Orders.
58. This aspect assumes significance in the light of the testimony of PW-
13 Ramesh Kumar Behl, who was the Accountant in MCD in the year 1998-
99 and on the requisition of the IO, had produced the Tender File and Bills
of Work Order No. 535 dated 24.12.1998, which is Ex. PW-7/A and Ex.
PW-7/B, collectively. File And Documents pertaining to Work Order No.
186 dated 10.07.1998 Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B, collectively. He further
deposed that he was shown MB No. 1766/CLZ Ex. PW-13/A and MB No.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 16 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
1769/CLZ Ex. PW-13/B to the IO, which bear his signatures on the Bills
cleared by him as an Accountant.
59. He in his cross-examination, explained that the details of work done
including procurement of Bitumen, rubber and stone, laying of road and also
measurement of road, is done and reflected in the MB. Further, the Invoice
Number is also reflected in the Measurement Book (MB) as is seen at Mark
DA on Ex. PW-13/B and Receipt No. 0167348 dated 05.10.1998 at Mark
DA on Ex. PW-13/B, was received from IOC. The Bitumen was received
from IOC on 09.10.1998. The payment had been released only on
completion of work to the satisfaction of MCD. He further deposed that he
had passed the Bills only after checking the Invoices and the quantity
mentioned in the MB and tallying the same. He admitted in his cross-
examination that he never visited the site and did not verify in any manner
in which Bitumen was unloaded at the site. He did not verify what was the
process or the manner in which Bitumen was received. He did not lift any
sample from the site for checking in respect of quality and quantity.
60. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the testimony of PW-20 S.S.
Sandhu, retired ACP, who was the Inspector at the relevant time and had
carried out investigations in the present case. He also admitted that he had
only sought information from IOC, Mathura Refinery through letter Ex.
PW-16/B if any Bitumen as supplied to M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium,
Delhi and received a response in the negative. It is evident that no
information vide the Invoice number which was available on record and
found mention in MB Book, had been sought by him. He also admitted that
the MB Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B were seized by him during the
investigations. He admitted that even though Invoice number was mentioned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 17 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
at Entry No. 4 Mark DA in Ex. PW-11/DA, he never tried to get the said
Invoice checked. He did not recollect if he had got this Invoice checked.
61. The MB Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B pertaining to the two Work
Orders had been seized by the IO during the investigations. PW-13 Ramesh
Kumar Behl in his cross-examination has explained that MB have the details
of the work done including procurement of Bitumen, rubber and stone,
laying of road and measurement of the work done in all. He also admitted
that the Invoice number was reflected in the MB vide which Bitumen was
received from IOC on 09.10.1998.
62. The Appellants in their defense, had examined DW-1 Pradeep
Kumar, Dy. Director (Technical), Quality Control Department, NDMC,
Delhi), who deposed that he was posted in MCD as Lab Assistant in 1985
and promoted to the post of Technical Assistant in the year 1989 and was
promoted as Technical Officer in Municipal Lab in the year 1996. In 2012,
he was promoted as Dr. Director (Technical) Quality Control Department.
He explained that MCD has set up by a Lab for conducting independent Test
for verification of material used for execution of different work. The tests
are conducted in respect of different Tenders awarded by MCD, to various
Contractors. During his tenure, he conducted various test of Bituminous
work, stone aggregate, bricks, sand and CC Cubes. For the purpose of
testing, samples are required to be lifted in the presence of one authorized
representative of Municipal Lab, from the actual site of execution of work.
He further deposed that in the year 1998-99, there were around 7-8
Technical Officers posted in the Technical Lab along with him.
63. The Municipal Lab is not connected to any Division and is an
independent verifying Agency of Municipal Corporation. The witness was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 18 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
shown the Lab Test Report bearing Proforma No. 1083 (Mark
DE/Ex.DW1/D1) and Report bearing Proforma No. 46270 in the file
Ex.PW-7/B. He admitted that Proforma No. 1083 is the Lab Test Report of
premix bearing signatures of Technical Officer Brahamanand, which he
could identify as he had worked with him. As per this Report, the sample of
which the Test was conducted, was found to be in conformity with
specifications.
64. Likewise, the Proforma Report No. 46270 Ex.DW-1/D2 was deposed
to be pertaining to stone aggregate Test Report, which had his signatures at
Point A. The Test Report mentions conducting of “Crushing Test” and
“Impact Test”, which were conducted to ascertain the quality of material
and whether it was in conformity with technical requirements. As per the
Report, the samples were found to be in conformity with technical
specifications.
65. The witness was also shown the Proforma No. 1072 Ex. DW-1/D3
and Report; Proforma No. 32192 and 32189 Ex. DW-1/D4 and Ex. DW-
1/D5, respectively. The Report bearing Proforma No. 1072 was the
“Bituminous Extraction Test”, which was found to be in conformity with the
technical specifications. It was explained that the sample is put in bitumen
extraction machine to take out binder content of Bitumen from the sample.
Likewise, Proforma No. 32192 and 32189 pertained to Stone Aggregate Test
Report in relation to metalling work, which had the signatures of H.L.
Mendiratta, Technical Officer. As per the Test Reports, the samples were in
conformity with the requirements.
66. In his cross-examination, though he admitted that the samples were
not lifted in his presence and that the Test were not conducted by him or that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 19 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
the contents of the Report were not filled by him, but the Reports Ex. DW-
1/D2 had his signatures. The contents of these Proforma Reports though
were already filled in, but was signed by him.
67. The testimony of DW-1, therefore, corroborate that at the time of
execution of work, the samples of Bitumen were taken from the site and
they were independently tested by the Department and were found to be in
order. These facts are correspondingly reflected in the Measurement Book,
which interestingly was collected during the investigations but pertinently
not referred to be Inspector S.S.Sandhu, revealing not only the lackadaisical
investigations done by him but also reflect complete malafide with liitle
regard to the impact on the career of three Appellants.
68. The other material witnesses are DW-3 J.B. Bhatia, a retired
Executive Engineer, MCD, who deposed that during his service tenure in
MCD from the year 1972 till October, 2011, he had dealt with construction
of bridges, buildings, road work and parking, etc. in regard to road work, he
had been associated with execution of work in the nature of “metalling,
premix and dense carpets”. The ingredients required for execution of
metalling job are stone aggregates of various sizes, red bazri, moorum and
earth. Bitumen is required for execution of premix work. Ingredients of
premix are stone aggregates, stone dust and bitumen.
69. DW-3 J.B. Bhatia, further deposed that the Invoice is a document
submitted by the Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta in lieu of his claim for
storing Bitumen at site i.e. for quality and quantity of the Bitumen. The
claim of the Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta is not binding on the
Department. The officials of MCD have to check independently the quality
and quantity of the material brought at site. After independent examination,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 20 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
the record entries are made in the MB/Register. In the event of any
difference/variation in respect of the entries in the Invoice and the actual
measurement made at site, the measurement made at site would prevail over
the Invoice and the same shall be recorded in the MB. For the preparation of
bill as well as for payment in respect of execution of work, the Invoice is of
no significance. The payment is made according to the actual work executed
at the site. The bill has to be accompanied with the MB and Test Reports.
The custodian of the accounts file is Accounts Clerk in Accounts Division.
70. The CPWD Manual reflects the duties of the Engineer regarding the
inspection of work in paragraph 5.11.1 and 7.33.2, photocopies of which are
Ex. DW-3/DA and Ex.DW-3/DB, respectively. A Circular dated 24.05.2001
was circulated by MCD in respect of dense carpet work wherein it was
stated that the Contractor shall be responsible for the correctness and
genuineness of all the documents. This Circular finds mention in the
sanction Ex.PW-22/DA in the letter dated 23.06.2008 filed by the
Prosecution. He further deposed that if the work is executed as per the
technical qualifications i.e. quality and quantity, then there is no loss to
MCD.
71. From the testimony of these two defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-3,
it emerges that the Invoice vide which the Bitumen is purchased by the
Contractor is only with an objective of verifying the quality and quantity of
the Bitumen. The sample of Bitumen is taken from the site before the
execution of the work and is tested in the MCD Lab. Furthermore, there is a
constant monitoring of the work as it progresses and the quantity and the
quality of the work executed at the site is correspondingly reflected in the
MBs. In the present case, the MB are Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 21 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
which show that there is detailed description of the amount of work that had
been executed. As has already been mentioned, it also contains a reference
to Invoice No. 0167348 vide which the Bitumen was purchased by the
Contractor. Sample Bitumen was taken and it was tested in MCD Lab and
was found to be of requisite quality.
72. The evidence was led by the Prosecution, itself establishes that the
Bitumen had been purchased from IOCL and was of the requisite quality
and was duly utilised for execution of the work. The documents of the
Prosecution as contained in the Work Order Files Ex-6/A & 6/B and Ex-7/A
& 7/B along with the MB, itself prove that Bitumen of specified quality and
in the stated quantity, was used for completion of the Work Orders. There is
no evidence whatsoever to show that the work was not done in accordance
with the specifications of the Work Order.
73. It may also be observed that there is no evidence whatsoever to
suggest that the Invoice submitted by the Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta
was fake or fabricated or that there was any connivance inter se the
Contractor, Ashok Kumar Gupta and the Appellants in using inferior
material or clearing the Bills inappropriately for causing a benefit to the
Contractor and corresponding loss to MCD.
74. It is also significant to observe that as per the charge, the loss of
Rs.1.75 Lacs had been caused to MCD. However, from the MB and the Bills
including the bill Ex. 6/A, it is evident that for the first Work Order No. 186
dated 10.07.1998, the quantity of Bitumen required to be used was worth of
Rs. 8025/-. The quantity of Bitumen required and utilised for the second
Work Order No. 535 dated 24.12.1998 was worth of Rs. 12088/-. The total
Bitumen quantity in the two Work Orders as upto Rs. 20,113/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 22 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
75. Even if the entire case of Prosecution is accepted that the Bitumen
was not purchased from IOCL or that it was of inferior quality, then too it
was only a small component of the material utilised for completion of work
aside from labour and other execution charges. By no stretch of imagination,
can be said that there is any loss of Rs.1.75 Lacs caused to MCD.
76. In this regard, it is also pertinent to observe that there was no
complaint whatsoever about the quality of work by any Agency, when this
secret information was received by PW 20 Insp. S.S. Sandhu in the year
2004. As already noted above, this secret information had no basis or any
legs to stand on.
77. The falsity of so-called secret information, is also evident from the
fact that an enquiry was conducted by PW 20 Insp. S.S. Sandhu and had
sought the comment from the office of Chief Engineer, who had responded
vide letter dated 06.07.2004 Ex. PW-22/DA wherein it was clarified that
M/s Universal Sanitary Emporium had bought the required quantity of
Bitumen and submitted the Invoices in token of procurement from the
authorized Company. The work had been satisfactorily completed in the
year 1998 and the payment had been made accordingly to the respected
Contractor Firms.
78. It was further stated in detail that in the year 1999, on receipt of
Complaint, the Vigilance Department which had all the records pertaining to
these Works from Division, forwarded them to CBI to enquire into the
matter. Detailed investigations were conducted by CBI and no discrepancy
was found on the part of Engineers of MCD and the same was send back to
MCD to deal with these cases departmentally.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 23 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
79. With the approval of the then Commissioner, a Committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of R.K. Meena, the then Chief Engineer,
N.K. Sandhu and H.D. Seekri as Members and P.K. Jain, as Member
Secretary. After deliberations, the Committee came to a conclusion that the
officials of MCD were not responsible for the correctness/genuineness of
the documents submitted by the Contractor for which the Contractor alone
was responsible in terms of Circular No. D/67/E.E. (P)III/F2 dated
24.05.2001. it was further stated that as far as the responsibility of the
Engineers of MCD was concerned, it was restricted to the execution of the
work done and not to ascertain the correctness/genuineness of the
documents submitted by the Contractor for which responsibility solely lies
with the Agency/Contractor producing them in token of the proof of
purchase of Bitumen from an authorized oil company.
80. The Committee Report dated 24.05.2001 had also been annexed Ex.
PW-22/DA wherein also it was considered that the copy of the Circular was
annexed along with the Report. From this document i.e. Ex. PW-22/DA with
which PW-20 S.S. Sandhu was confronted, further reflects that the enquiry
that was conducted by him before registration of FIR which also pointed
that there was no case of cheating or of corruption, as was sought to be
made out. PW 20 ACP S.S. Sandhu despite having found in his enquiry that
there was no offence made out, has chosen to register this FIR against the
officials of MCD/Appellants as well as against the Contractor Ashok Kumar
Gupta (who has since died).
81. The entire evidence even if admitted in toto, lead to an inevitable
conclusion of there was no offence committed by the Appellants. The Ld.
Special Judge fell in error in concluding that there was any conspiracy inter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 24 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56
se the Appellants and the Contractor Ashok Kumar Gupta, who cheated the
Department of Rs.1.75 Lacs.
82. Furthermore, there is no an iota of evidence that the Appellants had
demanded or received any amount whatsoever as Commission or that they
have indulged in any kind of corrupt practice. They in their hierarchy, had
merely endorsed the Running bills, which were duly supported with the
Invoices and the MBs, which had been ultimately cleared by the Accounts
Department.
83. At no point, is there any evidence to reflect that any of the Appellants
cleared the file with an ulterior motive of getting an undue enrichment.
There is no offence whatsoever punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) PC Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC, proved
against the Appellants.
Conclusion:
84. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Appeal Nos. bearing CRL.A.
1238/2015, CRL.A. 1254/2015 and CRL.A. 1255/2015 filed by Appellants
are allowed and Appellants Sanjay Kumar Jain, C.B. Singh, S.N. Goel, are
hereby acquitted.
85. The Appeal No. CRL.A. 239/2016 filed by the State for enhancement
of the sentence is without any merit and is hereby, dismissed.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 28, 2025
N
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT CRL.A. 1238/2015 & connected matters Page 25 of 25
Signing Date:28.07.2025
17:54:56