1 2025:CGHC:55109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 748 of 2000 R.C.Moorjani (Dead) Through His Wife Smt. Savita Moorjani Wd/o Late Shri R. C. Moorjani Aged About 75 Years R/o Flat No. 202, Second Floor, Westend Vidyavihar, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus The State Of M.P. Now C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/CBI : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 12.11.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), in Special Criminal Case No. 42/1985, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 6,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 months. Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (In short, ‘PC Act’) Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.6,000/-. in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that the appellant R.C. Moorjani died during the pendency of the present appeal, on account of which the appellant’s wife (Smt. Savita Moorjani) moved an application seeking permission to contest the appeal on behalf of her husband, on the ground that the retiral benefits of late R.C.Moorjani had been withheld due to the pendency of the present appeal. Hence, she moved an application to contest the appeal after the death of the accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani, and the appeal is being contested by wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Savita Moorjani. Accordingly, the Court now proceeds to hear the present appeal in respect of appellant’s wife, namely, Smt. Savita Moorjani. 3. Conviction is challenged on the ground without there being any iota of evidence that the original appellant/accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph and thereby committed illegality. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant was posted in Bhilai Steel Plant, as Junior Manager (Inspection) during the period 1982 to 1984. The prosecution alleges that co-accused Ajit Singh was proprietor of Public Engineering Works, Durg. Prosecution alleges that 3 vide Ex.P-2 Drawing C.O.B.79-104-2 & C.O.B.-79-104-4, the Indent Division had indented requirement of flanges for coke oven and the Purchase Department was asked to obtain tenders and quotations. Public Engineering Works submitted quotations vide Ex.P-28 and Albin, Ranjana and Mishra Engineering and K.R. Enterprizes also submitted quotations. Prosecution alleges that Public Engineering Works was recommended for supply and vide Drawing COB-79-104-2 and COB- 79-104-4, the Public Engineering Works had to supply the flanges. Prosecution alleges that these drawings were corrected and the supply had to be in accordance with the corrected drawing. Prosecution alleges that Public Engineering Works did not supply the flanges in accordance with the corrected drawings and supplies made in accordance with the allegedly incorrect drawings and it is alleged that the appellant entered into criminal conspiracy with Ajit Singh, Proprietor of Public Engineering Works and pursuant to that on 21.09.1983 vide Ex.P-6 he granted inspection certificate. It is alleged that appellant knew that the supply order was in accordance with the corrected drawing and it is alleged that because of the inspection report of the appellant based on incorrect drawing Ajit Singh supplied goods and submitted bills and he obtained Rs. 54,012.65/- from Bhilai Steel Plant. After obtaining permission and Sanction from Bhilai Steel Plant, CBI investigated into the matter and submitted charge-sheet and charges were framed against the appellant. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in 4 the crime in question. Upon the charges being read out and explained to the appellant, the appellant denied having committed the offence. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated in this incident. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), in Special Criminal Case No. 42/1985 convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offences as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the prosecution evidence has completely failed to establish that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant where he had inspected the flanges and issued the certificate. It is further submitted that it is paramount importance to understand that what the prosecution is saying is that after the quotations had been accepted, drawings were corrected by Mr. R.N. Kamath (PW-12) does not appear to be correct as whether the drawing had been corrected or not could have been determined only when the original tracings which are with the Bhilai Steel Plant had been produced. It is also submitted that inspite of efforts being made the original tracings were never produced in the Court. It is also submitted that the evidence brought by the prosecution does not satisfy the prima facie case which is made out. As such the conviction and sentence of the appellant are completely bad in the eyes of law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI/respondent supports the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, and states that no interference is called for. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 10. M.V.G.S. Murthy (PW-3) has stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that the accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani was posted, in the year 1983, as Junior Manager (Inspection) at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. Likewise, K.R. Sangameshwar (PW-8) has also stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that the accused/appellant was posted as Junior Manager (Inspection) at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. The accused R. C. Moorjani, in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, in answer to Question No. 1, has admitted this fact, and he has also examined himself as a defence witness, wherein in paragraph 1 of his testimony he has again admitted the said fact. Thus, it stands proved that the accused/appellant was posted in the year 1983 as Junior Manager (Inspection) at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. 11. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 provides that, “for the purposes of this Act, "public servant" means a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.” Clause (12) of Section 21 IPC reads as under— (12) Every person— (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). 12. Since the accused R.C. Moorjani was posted as Junior Manager (Inspection) at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, and since Bhilai Steel Plant 6 falls within the ambit of Section 21(12)(b) of the IPC, and the accused was receiving salary from Bhilai Steel Plant, which is under the control of the Central Government, the accused R.C. Moorjani shall be considered a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 21 IPC read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 13. Consequently, with respect to the Determinable Issue No. 1, it is held that the accused R. C. Moorjani was a public servant for the purposes of prosecution under Section 2 of the P.C. Act, 1947. 14. In order to prove the sanction, the prosecution has examined K. R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8), who has stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that the CBI had sent a letter to the Additional Chief Vigilance Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, seeking sanction for prosecution against R.C. Moorjani/appellant, Junior Manager (Inspection), Bhilai Steel Plant. He further stated that the Additional Vigilance Officer had placed before him all the documents, statements of witnesses, and the CBI report relating to the matter, and that he had personally examined them. 15. With respect to the above statement of K.R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.- 8), an objection has been raised on behalf of the accused that, while granting the sanction, K. R. Sangameshwaran had not examined the drawings and original tracings; that he did not know Ajit Singh of Public Engineering Works; and that, from paragraphs 4 and 5 of his cross- examination, it is evident that K. R. Sangameshwaran granted sanction without applying his mind. Consequently, the defence argues that the sanction order (Ex.P-20) was issued without proper application of mind. 7 16. In view of the submissions made by the accused, the statement of K.R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8) was recorded. In paragraph 2 of his deposition, K.R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8) stated that the statements of witnesses, the CBI report, and the relevant documents were placed before him; he personally examined them and was satisfied that there existed sufficient grounds to grant sanction for prosecution against R.C. Moorjani, whereupon he granted the sanction (Ex.P-20). 17. In paragraph 4 of his deposition, K.R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8) further stated that all documents relating to the design of the flanges, in connection with which the present case is pending against the accused, had been sent to the Design Department of Bhilai Steel Plant. In paragraph 5, he stated that, on the basis of document Ex.D-10, the procurement of flanges had commenced. He also stated that since a drawing number was mentioned in the drawing, there was no necessity to separately mention dimensions. This also indicates that K.R. Sangameshwaran had examined the documents placed before him. 18. In paragraph 8 of his deposition, K.R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8) stated that Public Engineering Works had conspired with the accused and that, instead of supplying the item demanded, a different item was supplied. Based on this, he concluded that the accused had conspired with the supplier. 19. Since the prosecution case is that a supply order was issued as per the corrected drawing, and the same was to be sent to accused Ajit Singh, and since K. R. Sangameshwaran stated in paragraph 5 that Ex.D-10 contained the drawing number and that the drawing itself contained the dimensions, making it unnecessary to mention them separately, it is 8 evident from his testimony that the drawing on the basis of which the order placed, was indeed presented before the sanctioning authority at the time the sanction was granted. Thus, merely because K.R. Sangameshwaran did not examine the original tracing, it cannot be said that he failed to apply his mind. 20. From the testimony of K. R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8) and the sanction order (Ex.P-20), it stands clearly established that before granting sanction against the accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani, K. R. Sangameshwaran had examined the documents placed before him and only thereafter granted the sanction. Consequently, in light of the statement of K.R. Sangameshwaran (P.W.-8), it stands proved that the sanction (Ex.P-20) was granted after due consideration of all relevant documents. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it stands established that the prosecution has obtained sanction from the competent authority, and that the sanctioning authority has exercised proper application of mind while granting the sanction. Accordingly, the cognizance taken on the basis of the sanction order (Ex.P-20) does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 22. Now, it has to be considered whether the evidence produced by the prosecution proves that the appellant, in collusion with co-accused, has committed fraud in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. R.N. Kamath (PW-12), in paragraph 2 of his deposition, stated that for the work of rebuilding the battery, the relevant drawings are shown, and thereafter the material required is prepared in the form of a “Purchase Indent”. He stated that he himself used to prepare the indent, which was then sent 9 through the Superintendent to the Production Planning Control Department for scrutiny. After scrutiny, budget sanction was accorded, and thereafter the indent and the drawing were forwarded to the Materials Procurement Department. If the required material was not available with the firms, clearance was given for processing a purchase case. T. Sarnathan (PW-1), in paragraph 1 of his deposition, also stated that for the Coke Oven Department, flanges were required, and the purchase department takes further steps in that regard. This procedure has also been admitted by the accused. Thus, the procurement procedure described by T. Sarnathan and R.N. Kamath is fully acceptable. 23. Both the witnesses further stated that quotations are invited, and a comparative statement is prepared by arranging the lowest quotation first, followed by the next higher quotations in sequence, and such comparative statement is forwarded to the indenting authority. The indenting authority then advises the purchase department as to which material should be procured. Therefore, from the testimony of both these witnesses, it is evident that tenders are invited for the purchase of material. 24. T. Sarnathan (PW-1), in paragraph 4 of his statement, stated that investigation and verification are assigned to the Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager, Junior Manager, etc. If there is any deficiency in the specifications, drawings, literature, or any other matter sent by the Materials Department, a memorandum is issued to the purchase department, with a copy to the indenting department, and it is the responsibility of the purchase department to comply with the corrections suggested. R.N. Kamath has given similar testimony. This 10 makes it clear that drawings, literature, specifications, etc., were sent by the purchase department to the inspection department. 25. M.V.G.S. Murthy, in paragraph 2 of his deposition, stated that a person working as Junior Manager (Inspection) is allotted a specific steel punch number. This number is allotted so that when the General Manager sends material for inspection, the Junior Manager may inspect the supplied material and affix the allotted punch number on the material found correct. The purpose of the punch is to ensure that the supplier does not supply material other than what has been inspected. Naresh Sharma (PW-6) has also made similar statements. M.V.G.S. Murthy, in paragraph 4 of his deposition, stated that steel punch No. B.S.R.-80 was allotted to the accused. N.K. Kharche (PW- 9), in paragraph 2, also stated that in the Steel Punch Code Issue Register (Article A, page 32), punch No. B.S.R.-80 was allotted to the accused. The accused has admitted these facts in his statement under Section 313 CrPC in questions 18 to 21. 26. R.N. Kamath (PW-12), in paragraph 10 of his deposition, stated that the purchase file relating to the flanges came to him, and he made recommendations. He further stated that the file contained the comparative statement and the quotations of the parties, including Public Engineering, Albin Engineering, Ranjana Industries, K.R. Enterprises, Mishra Engineering, etc. Exhibit P-58 was the comparative statement, and Exhibit P-28 contained the details of the rates quoted by Public Engineering Works. In paragraph 11, he stated that on the basis of the comparative statement (Ex. P-58) and the quotations received, he recommended supply from the party offering the lowest rate. The relevant note-sheet is Exhibit P-62. In paragraph 12, he 11 stated that he had recommended the names of Albin Engineering, Public Engineering, Ranjana Industries, Mishra Engineering, and K.R. Enterprises. 27. The next issue to be examined is whether the Supply Order in favour of Public Engineering Works was issued on the basis of the corrected drawing. 28. R.N. Kamath (PW-12), in paragraph 5, stated that the construction of Battery No. 1 was similar to Battery No. 2, and therefore the same type of flanges were required. Hence, the same drawing was used, with corrections in the serial numbers. In the old drawing, the serial numbers were written from top to bottom, whereas in the tracing section they were written from bottom to top. Nine prints were generated from the said drawing. In Section-2 and Section-4 of those prints, there were mistakes, which he corrected by striking out the incorrect serial numbers and marking the correct ones with his initials. He made these corrections in all nine prints, retained one with himself, and forwarded the remaining eight prints along with the indent to the concerned departments as per the earlier described procedure, from where they were sent to the purchase department. In paragraph 6, he further stated that the drawing number of the corrected drawing was C.O.B.-79-104, and he had corrected the serial numbers in Sections 2 and 4 and had initialized them. 29. T. Sarnathan (PW-1), in paragraph 8, stated that while submitting an indent, the indenter also submits the drawing of the material. He reiterated this statement during cross-examination as well. Although the witness attempted to state that no alteration can be made in a 12 drawing and that any alteration is required to be sent to the Engineering and Design Bureau of Bhilai Steel Plant, and in paragraph 9 that any change in a drawing can be made only after approval, the fact remains that he admitted that drawings are sent along with the indent. This supports the testimony of R.N. Kamath. 30. P.N. Sahu (P.W.-4), in paragraph 2 of his statement, has deposed that in the year 1983, the accused R.C. Moorjani had come to inspect his business premises, and that the drawing for the inspection of the undertaking was given to Moorjani by the owner, accused Ajit Singh. Moorjani carried out the inspection in accordance with the drawing supplied by co-accused Ajit Singh and issued the inspection certificate. The accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani issued the test certificate (Ex.P- 6). In his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in response to Question No. 99, the appellant admitted that the test certificate (Ex.P- 6) was issued by him, and in reply to Question No. 100, he further admitted that on 21.09.1983 he had gone to the site of Public Engineering Works, G.E. Road, Durg, inspected the material, and issued test certificate (Ex.P-6). Thus, with respect to the flanges supplied by Public Engineering Works, accused R.C. Moorjani issued the certificate, and according to P.N. Sahu (P.W.-4), the said certificate was issued on the basis of the drawing (Ex.P-4), whereas the supply order had been issued on the basis of the corrected drawing. 31. T. Sarnathdhan (P.W.-1), in paragraph 6 of his statement, has stated that officers of his department visit the site, inspect the material, and only upon satisfaction, affix the seal of the Inspection Department containing the code number. In paragraph 8 of his statement, he has 13 stated that the indenter furnishes the drawing of the material along with the indent. 32. K. Natarajan (P.W.-2), in paragraph 28 of his statement, has deposed that generally the drawing of the material accompanies the demand/purchase indent, and in paragraph 30, he admitted that in the present case, while making the enquiry for the purchase of flanges, a copy of the drawing of the flanges was not supplied to Public Engineering Works. He further stated in paragraph 29 that since there are many local fabricators and the number of copies of drawings is limited, the local fabricators are asked to visit the office and look at the drawings there. 33. If the testimony of K. Natarajan (P.W.-2) is considered, it becomes clear that the copy of the drawing was not supplied to Public Engineering Works. Therefore, how the drawing (Ex.P-4) came into the possession of accused Ajit Singh remains unexplained, as no plausible explanation has been furnished by him. Further, since it was the duty of accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani, at the time of inspection, to verify the drawing supplied by the Purchase Department, no such exercise was undertaken by him. When Public Engineering Works supplied an uncorrected drawing to accused Moorjani, it was incumbent upon him to ascertain from the Inspection or Purchase Department whether such a drawing had been issued by the department to Public Engineering Works. However, no such enquiry was made by accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani, and he directly issued the certificate. 34. A. Raut (P.W.-7), in paragraph 1 of his statement, stated that accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani had taken the corrected drawing from 14 him, acknowledging its receipt through Ex.P-19. Accused R.C. Moorjani (D.W.-1), in paragraph 9 of his statement, admitted that the noting “C to C” on (Ex.P-19) was made by him, it is dated 18.04.1984 and that he had written “Received corrected drawing”; Ex.P-19 pertains to M/s Ranjana Industries. When accused R.C. Moorjani had already inspected Public Engineering Works on 21.09.1983, there was no reason for him to obtain a drawing from Ranjana Industries, particularly when the inspection of Ranjana Industries had already been completed earlier. The procurement of a corrected drawing from another firm by accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani indicates that he was aware that the supply order had been issued on the basis of the corrected drawing. Since he had earlier issued the certificate concerning the flanges manufactured by Public Engineering Works on the basis of (Ex.P-4), accused Moorjani procured the corrected drawing from M/s Ranjana Industries as reflected in Ex.P-19. 35. Accused R.C. Moorjani deliberately issued certificate (Ex.P-6) on the basis of the uncorrected drawing, and on the strength of this certificate, accused Ajit Singh, proprietor of Public Engineering Works, submitted the bill and delivery challan, pursuant to which payment for the flanges was made to him. Thus, accused R.C. Moorjani, being a public servant, facilitated the wrongful gain of accused Ajit Singh, and his acts clearly fall within the ambit of criminal conspiracy with co-accused Ajit Singh. The issuance of certificate (Ex.P-6) by accused/appellant R.C. Moorjani demonstrates that he enabled co-accused Ajit Singh to obtain wrongful gain. 36. In view of the above judicial precedents, it stands proved that the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to deceive the 15 Bhilai Steel Plant, and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused R.C. Moorjani issued certificate (Ex.P-6), while co-accused Ajit Singh supplied low-priced flanges and submitted a bill for higher rates. Thus, the accused persons executed the deception in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, as a result of which co-accused Ajit Singh obtained wrongful gain amounting to Rs. 54,012.65/-. 37. In view of the detailed discussion and careful appraisal of the evidence, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant, while functioning as Junior Manager (Inspection), knowingly issued the inspection/test certificate (Ex.P-6) on the basis of an uncorrected drawing, despite being fully aware that the supply order had been issued pursuant to the corrected drawing. His subsequent act of obtaining the corrected drawing from another firm after completing the inspection clearly indicates his knowledge of the true position and establishes his active participation in the criminal conspiracy. The said certificate enabled the co-accused Ajit Singh to submit inflated bills and secure undue pecuniary advantage, thereby consummating the conspiracy and resulting in wrongful gain to the co-accused and corresponding loss to the Bhilai Steel Plant. The sanction for prosecution has also been duly proved, having been granted by the competent authority after proper application of mind. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as recorded by the trial Court, is well-founded and warrants no interference. Hence, the trial Court has rightly 16 convicted the appellant and sentenced as detailed in the opening paragraph. 38. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar