Charges Are Properly Framed in CBI Probe of Sikkim Rural Water Tenders; Trial Ordered to Proceed

A Bench headed by Chief Justice Ripusudan Dayal delivered judgment in criminal revisions challenging the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Sikkim's order dated 15-11-2002 directing framing of charges in Criminal Case No. 8/1997 (registered as RC-8/84-CIU-(A) by the CBI). The petitions by eight accused persons assailed the framing of charge in a long-running CBI prosecution arising out of alleged manipulation in award of rural water supply contracts under the Minimum Needs Programme (1983–84).

The Court upheld the learned trial Judge's conclusion that there was a prima facie case and directed framing of charges. It held that the conspiracy charged was to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and therefore did not attract the bar in Section 196(2) CrPC requiring prior consent; that repeal of the 1947 Act did not extinguish ongoing proceedings because of the saving in Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act; and that the CBI investigation was competent. The Court quoted the trial court's finding that “the facts and circumstances ... indicate that Sri N. B. Bhandari, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 … abused their official positions” and concluded that “charge shall be framed against Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, accused No.1 and Shri P. K. Pradhan, accused No.2 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947” and that other accused (except two deceased) would be charged under Section 120B IPC read with the said provisions of the 1947 Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “While considering the material on record to find out whether there is a prima facie case the Court is not required to make roving enquiry and evaluate the materials meticulously so as to test the veracity of the prosecution case... If the facts emerging from the record taken at face value discloses prima facie case the charge can be framed.”

Background

The prosecution arose from a cabinet decision (24-11-1983) to implement 36 Rural Water Supply Schemes in Sikkim at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,62,31,630 under the Minimum Needs Programme. A tender notice (published 19-12-1983) invited bids for 15 schemes; the notice stated that contractors resident in scheme villages would be given preference. The CBI registered RC-8/84 on 7-8-1984 and filed a charge-sheet on 14-9-1994 against 17 accused, alleging that the then Chief Minister and the Secretary, Rural Development Department conspired with others to award contracts to persons who had not quoted the lowest rates, causing pecuniary loss to the State and pecuniary advantage to the accused. Two accused died before the impugned order; the trial court deleted the record relating to one scheme (Scheme No.11) on the prosecution's request.

The petitioners contested framing on four principal grounds: (i) that the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was simpliciter and thus required prior written consent under Section 196(2) CrPC; (ii) that offences predated the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and so could not be charged under the 1988 Act; (iii) that the FIR under Section 154 CrPC was not recorded at a declared police station; and (iv) that there was no sufficient material to frame charges because the tender notice allowed preference to local contractors and reserved the right to reject tenders. The Court rejected these contentions. It construed the conspiracy as being to commit offences under the 1947 Act (punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years), removing the need for State consent; it relied on Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to preserve proceedings under the 1947 Act; it noted statutory recognition of the CBI/DSPE for investigation; and it applied settled law that the magistrate need only be satisfied of a prima facie case without weighing evidence in detail. The Court found documentary and oral material showing awards were repeatedly made away from lowest tenderers and in some cases to persons alleged to be favourites, and it declined to interfere with the trial court's reasons on the schemes examined.

The Court ordered that charges be framed as directed by the trial court in respect of schemes (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii); noted that accused Nos. 3 and 16 stood discharged by reason of death; recorded that Scheme No.11 was deleted from the case; and directed the accused to appear before the trial court on 6-5-2003. The criminal revisions were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Revisions challenging Order dated 15-11-2002 in Criminal Case No. 8/1997 (RC-8/84-CIU-(A)) Case Title: Criminal Revisions arising out of Special Judge (P.C. Act), Sikkim in Criminal Case No. 8/1997 (CBI RC-8/84-CIU-(A)) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Milon Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate (for petitioner Shri N. B. Bhandari) and other counsel for co-petitioners For the Respondent(s): Shri I. D. Vaid, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI