Interim Order 30

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 0
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI),
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
CNR No. DLCT11-000420-2022
CBI No 41/2022
CBI v Rajesh Mishra
08.01.2024
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation had submitted the
charge-sheet in RC06A99SIL dated 06.12.1999 against accused Dr.
M. P. Singh and Rajesh Mishra (being not arrested) for the offences
punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 before Ld.
Special Judge, Manipur East, Imphal on 20.01.2003. On the same
day, Ld. Special Judge, Manipur East took cognizance in the matter
against accused Dr. M. P. Singh, being public servant (the then
Vice-Chancellor, Central Agricultural University, Imphal, Manipur)
and Rajesh Mishra. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.04.2005,
Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the present case to Delhi Court.
2. Accused M. P. Singh appeared before the court while
accused Rajesh Mishra was not traceable and thereafter was
declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 26.03.2008. Vide
order dated 26.11.2009, charge had been framed against the
-- 1 of 14 --
1
accused Dr. M. P. Singh for the offence punishable under Section
13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act to which accused M.
P. Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After conclusion of
the trial, accused M. P. Singh was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act
1988 vide judgment dated 30.03.2011 and sentenced vide order
dated 31.03.2011.
3. Accused Rajesh Mishra was arrested on 09.06.2022 and on
compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments have been heard on
the point of charge.
4. In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that Dr. M. P.
Singh was working as Vice-Chancellor in Central Agricultural
University, Imphal on deputation basis. On expiry of deputation
period, the accused relinquished the post of Vice-Chancellor on
19.01.1999.
5. According to the procedure, the Library Advisory
Committee (LAC) was constituted to assess the requirements of
books and for recommendation and advising the University for
purchase of books and journals for the library. The formation of
LAC was done by the accused verbally. On the recommendations
of LAC, the orders for purchase of books / journals were placed in
bulk, depending upon the funds. When the financial limit of the
Dean exceeds for the purchase of books /journals, the proposal for
sanction comes to Vice-Chancellor. On approval of the proposal,
-- 2 of 14 --
2
the purchase orders were placed by the Librarian. Books were
received by the Librarian and after that bills were also received and
verification of bills vis-a-vis books received and Good Offices
Committee (GOC) rules and stock entries are made by the
Librarian. The proposal for payment of bills were submitted by the
Librarian and after verification, sanctions were accorded by Dean
or Vice-Chancellor, depending upon the value of payments to be
made.
6. The books and journals were to be purchased by the said
University as per the guidelines of GOC which is being followed
by all universities with 10% discount. Accused Rajesh Mishra had
running a proprietor concern namely M/s Best Book Sellers and
Distributors, Kankarbagh Colony, Rental Flat No.213, Patna-20
and M/s Best Book Sellers and Distributors, 184/8A, DDA Janta
Flat, Trilok Puri, New Delhi. Rajesh Mishra has been managing the
affairs of these concerns throughout as its proprietor.
7. As per terms and conditions, the books were to be
purchased on discount of 10% from the published price. According
to the prosecution, Dr. M. P. Singh had shown undue favour to
accused Rajesh Mishra, proprietor of M/s Best Book Sellers &
Distributors by awarding supply orders. The supply order dated
05.12.1995 was placed with the firm of accused Rajesh Mishra, for
the supply of books of different titles. Accused Rajesh Mishra
supplied books to the University enclosing seven bills dated
-- 3 of 14 --
3
06.01.1996 amounting to Rs.3,34,686/-. The Assistant Librarian
pointed out that the prices indicated by the teachers were very
different in comparison with the prices mentioned in the price
proof submitted by the firm for which no action was taken by Dr.
M. P. Singh, rather a sum of Rs.3,34,686.34 was sanctioned by
accused Dr. M. P. Singh on 18.01.1996.
8. In the meeting dated 03.02.1996, the LAC resolved to
purchase books for a sum of Rs.3.8 Lakhs. On the directions of
accused Dr. M. P. Singh, the Librarian put a note giving the names
of four firms including the firm of accused Rajesh Mishra. On
14.02.1996 vide note 291, accused Dr. M. P. Singh approved the
proposal for purchase of books and selected the firm of accused
Rajesh Mishra for supply of books without giving any reason for
rejecting other firms. The supply order was sent by registered post
to the firm of accused Rajesh Mishra. On 21.02.1996, accused Dr.
M. P. Singh reached Delhi on official visit. He had taken the copy
of supply order and in pursuance of conspiracy, handed over the
same to accused Rajesh Mishra by hand, unofficially informing
him that the official copy had been sent to him by post. Accused
Rajesh Mishra started supplying the books before receiving the
supply order officially. Accused Rajesh Mishra received the supply
order officially on 28.02.1996.
-- 4 of 14 --
4
9. Dr. R. N. Singh, OSD, college of Veterinary Science &
Animal Husbandry, Imphal vide his letter No. Nil dated
03.08.1998, submitted proposal for purchase of additional
Veterinary books. On receiving the same, accused M. P. Singh
directed the Librarian to process the same. The Assistant Librarian
suggested the names of five firms, including the firm of accused
Rajesh Mishra, for the purchase of books. Accused Dr.M. P. Singh
selected the firm of accused Rajesh Mishra, without giving any
reasons for rejecting the names of other firms. The supply order
dated 06.08.1998 was placed with the firm of accused Rajesh
Mishra. The prices of books charged by accused Rajesh Mishra,
were exorbitant and the price proof submitted along with the bills,
were false, fake and manipulated. Accused Rajesh Mishra supplied
the books on Veterinary subjects enclosing therewith photocopies
of price proof and submitted 49 bills in 14 bunches for a sum of
Rs.38,49,267/-. Accused Dr. M. P. Singh accorded sanction for
payment against all the bills and 14 sanction orders were issued for
a sum of Rs.38,49,267/-.
10. Accused Rajesh Mishra purchased 17 books of Animal
Physiology @ Rs.395/- with 40% discount from M/s CBS
Publishers vide original carbon copy of invoice dated 13.09.1997
for total amount of Rs.4,029/-. Accused Rajesh Mishra
manipulated the said invoice by inflating the price of book from
Rs.395/- to Rs. 1395/- with discount of 10% and supplied the
-- 5 of 14 --
5
books to the University, Imphal. Accused Rajesh Mishra was paid
the inflated price. Accused Rajesh Mishra purchased one book
titled “Diseases of Poultry” from Jaypee Brothers vide invoice
dated 03.12.1997 @ $ 140.40 with 20% discount, the price in
Indian Rupees came to Rs.4360/-. Accused Rajesh Mishra
supplied the same book to the University @ $ 430.95 with 10%
discount by manipulating the original invoice and inflated the price
of book from $ 140.50 to $ 430.95. Accused Rajesh took payment
at inflated rate enclosing the photocopy of the manipulated invoice
along with his bill.
11. Accused Rajesh Mishra submitted fake price proof of the
book titled “Animal Physiology – Adaptation and Environment”
showing the price of book as 324.95 UK Pound instead of 24.95
UK Pound. The accused supplied the same to the University and
took payment at the inflated rate by enclosing photocopy of the
price proof. Accused Rajesh Mishra had manipulated the price of
books “Diary Management in India” 1989 edition authored by
Mohan and “Economics of Sheep Farming” 1990 edition authored
by Chauhan both published by Mittal Publications by submitting
fake and false price proofs showing price of Rs.1250/- and Rs.420/-
respectively whereas the actual price of the books were Rs.250/-
and Rs.120/- respectively. Rajesh Mishra took payment of the
inflated price using the forged price proofs from CAU.
-- 6 of 14 --
6
12. Accused Rajesh Mishra in conspiracy with accused M. P.
Singh took excess payment towards supply of 277 copies of 31
books to the tune of Rs.4,20,285/- by manipulating the price proofs
and submitting the forged price proofs, showing higher prices. The
conversion rate of the foreign currencies were taken at the rate
prevailing at the relevant time when said Rajesh Mishra had
submitted the bills and payment made by the University. Rajesh
Mishra gave 10% discount to CAU as mentioned in the bill but he
gave false certificates on the bills. According to the prosecution,
accused Rajesh Mishra along with accused M. P. Singh (since
convicted) acted in criminal conspiracy with each other to cheat the
University.
13. Arguing on behalf of CBI Sr. PP Sh. Praneet Sharma
submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that
accused has committed offence of cheating and forgery. Accused
Rajesh Mishra had submitted forged price proofs of books,
photocopies of challans / invoices in which prices of books had
been tampered to show much higher prices than the actual price of
the books and all the bills were passed. Accused Rajesh Mishra
also had furnished false certificates in the bills stating that correct
prices were charged, latest editions were supplied and received the
excess payment from the University.
-- 7 of 14 --
7
14. On the other hand, Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. Counsel for
accused Rajesh Mishra argued that this is the case of no evidence
and accused has been falsely implicated. Ld. Counsel has argued
that the investigating agency could produce only two bills claiming
to be forged to prove that the prices charged by the publishers is
different from what the accused used to claim in the price proof.
There is no seizure memo of these alleged forged bills on record. It
is further argued that prosecution has not sought any scientific
opinion about the alleged forged document and the said forged
document was neither produced in original. The prosecution has
failed to bring direct evidence on record to prima facie show that
accused has been involved in the commission of the alleged
offence. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the judgments of
Supreme Court, Topandas vs. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC
33, Devender Pal Singh v. State NCT of Delhi 2002 (56) SCC
235.
15. The law on the question of consideration of charge is well
settled, if the criminal court, on consideration of the material
submitted with the charge sheet finds that a grave suspicion exists
about the involvement of the accused in the crime alleged, it is
expected to frame the charge and put the accused on trial. At such
initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the
evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce is not required
to be meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be attached to the
probable defence of the accused.
-- 8 of 14 --
8
16. In the case of “State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh”, AIR
1977 SC 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to
consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance
whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with
the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test
and judgment which is to be finally applied before
recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the
accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding
the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. At
that stage the Court is not to 'see whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is
sure to end in his conviction.
xxxxx
Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains
in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of
his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial
stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to
think that there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to
say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
xxxxx
If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused are something like even at the conclusion of the,
trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to
-- 9 of 14 --
9
end in his acquittal. But, if, on the other hand, it is so at the
initial stage of making an order under section 227 or
section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and
generally the order which will have to be made will be one
under section 228 and not under section 227.
17. In “Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal” 1979
Crl. L.J. 154, Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following
observations regarding the test to be applied at the stage of
consideration of the case for charge:
Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a
charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to
determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon
the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule
of universal application. By and large however if two views
are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him giving rise to some suspicion
but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the accused. That in
exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code
the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and
experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a
mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
-- 10 of 14 --
10
evidence and the documents produced before the Court,
any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This
however does not mean that the Judge should make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
18. Similar observations were made in State of M.P. Vs. S. B.
Johari 2000 Cri. L.J. 944 (SC) in the following words:-
The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and
arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is
satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding
further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be
quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully
accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or
rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that
accused committed the particular offence. In such case,
there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial”.
19. In the case of “P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and
another, AIR 2010 SC 663, while observing that the criminal court
is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the
prosecution, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the court is
required to exercise judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
-- 11 of 14 --
11
determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. In this
context, the following observations indicate the manner of
assessment:
In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to
enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities
which is really the function of the Court, after the trial
starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In
other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its
fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the Court which ex facie
disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the
accused so as to frame a charge against him.
20. I have duly considered the contentions of both the sides
and examined the record of the case. I have also gone through the
written submissions filed on behalf of accused.
21. On hearing both the sides and on examination of relevant
record of the present matter and the statements of witnesses, I am
of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to establish the
involvement of accused in the commission of the offence. Accused
Rajesh Mishra had submitted forged price proofs of books,
photocopies of challans / invoices in which prices of books had
-- 12 of 14 --
12
been tampered to show much higher prices than the actual price of
the books for the purpose of cheating. Accused Rajesh Mishra also
had furnished false certificates in the bills stating that correct prices
were charged, the latest editions were supplied. Accused Rajesh
Mishra used forged documents as genuine and gain wrongful
benefit by cheating the University Authorities. Accused Rajesh
Mishra took excess payment towards supply of 277 copies of 31
books to the tune of Rs.4,20,285/- by manipulating the price proofs
and submitting the forged price proofs showing higher prices along
with the bills.
22. Since in order to constitute conspiracy meeting of minds of
two or more persons for doing an illegal act, is necessary the
offence of criminal conspiracy now cannot be attributed to accused
Rajesh Mishra as accused M. P. Singh was not charged for
conspiracy. Further, the offence of committing forgery cannot be
attributed to accused Rajesh Mishra as there is no allegation or
evidence that forged documents were created by accused Rajesh
Mishra in his handwriting. Although, forged price proofs were
submitted but it is not clear as to who has committed the forgery. In
this situation, accused can only be charged for using the forged
document and for deceiving the University authorities.
-- 13 of 14 --
13
23. At this stage, the court is required to take prima facie view
of the matter. At the stage of charge, no fishing and roving enquiry
can be conducted. The truthful of the evidence brought by the
prosecution would be tested during the trial.
24. In view of above observations, prime facie case for
offences under Section 420 IPC and 471 IPC are made out against
Rajesh Mishra. Accordingly, the accused is liable to be charged for
the said offences. Let the charges under Section 420 IPC and 471
IPC be framed against the accused Rajesh Mishra.
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi/08.01.2024
-- 14 of 14 --