Court restricts corruption charges, upholds forgery and breach of trust charges but quashes criminal misconduct count

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the appeal by K. H. Kamaladini against orders of the Sessions Judge, North Goa and the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging framing of charges arising from alleged irregularities in short tender notices in the Public Works Department. The appellant had sought discharge from offences under Sections 409 and 468 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court partly allowed the appeal. It sustained the Sessions Court’s framing of charges for offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) of the IPC but set aside the direction to frame charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The bench explained the limited scope of inquiry at the stage of framing of charge and relied on material in the chargesheet, including a CFSL handwriting opinion and the recorded statement of the then PWD Minister, to hold that prima facie material existed to proceed on forgery and breach of trust. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “There is no allegation made in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Therefore, on a plain reading, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act will not be attracted. In this case, there is no allegation that the appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification. There is no allegation that he had agreed or accepted any valuable thing or had dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him. Therefore, the ‘criminal misconduct’ as provided in Section 13(1) is not attracted in this case. That is how even the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not attracted. In short, there was no case made out to proceed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. To this extent, the impugned orders will have to be modified.” The Court also clarified that its observations were confined to the discharge stage and “will not bind the Trial Court at the time of the final hearing of the case.”

Background The dispute arose from a 2013 complaint alleging that 19 short tender notices for 847 water-supply works in Works Division XVII (PHE-N), Porvorim, Goa were not published in newspapers, works were split without justification and allotments favoured certain contractors. A departmental enquiry concluded that the appellant, then Executive Engineer, had inserted handwritten words above the Minister’s signature indicating approval “to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O,” and that the handwriting matched the appellant’s. The Vigilance Directorate registered Crime No.6 of 2013 and, after sanction under Section 19(1)(b) PC Act and Section 197 CrPC, filed a chargesheet in 2020 for offences under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act; the conspiracy count was dropped.

The Sessions Judge denied discharge, relying on authoritative tests for framing charges and finding that the CFSL opinion and the Minister’s statement, if uncontroverted, sufficed to proceed. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that alleged non-publication and overwriting could satisfy criminal misconduct and forgery ingredients. The appellant argued the works were emergent to address a water crisis and that he had been exonerated in departmental proceedings; the State relied on CPWD rules, forensic opinion and the distinction between disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court reviewed the limited ambit of inquiry at the charge-framing stage, reiterated that only chargesheet material could be considered, and found prima facie material for Sections 409 and 468 but held that Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act was not attracted as there was no allegation of pecuniary gain or gratification. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed and the direction to frame charge under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) was set aside; framing for Sections 409 and 468 was maintained.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.5380 of 2024 (2025 INSC 745) Case Title: K. H. Kamaladini v. State Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in judgment