20 May 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Forgery >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has partially allowed an appeal by an Executive Engineer from the Public Works Department (PWD) in Goa, setting aside charges framed against him under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, but maintaining those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal breach of trust and forgery. The case revolves around alleged irregularities in water supply tender notices and handwritten insertions on official documents.

Background of the Case:

The appellant, an Executive Engineer in PWD, Porvorim, Goa, faced a complaint lodged in January 2013 with the Chief Minister and Chief Vigilance Officer. The complaint alleged irregularities in 19 short tender notices for 847 water supply works. Specifically, it was claimed that these tenders were not published in newspapers as required by the Central Public Works Department Manual, works were unnecessarily split, and awarded to a select group of parties, leading to bids 4.8% to 14.95% above estimated costs and causing financial loss to the government.

A vigilance inquiry revealed that the appellant, after obtaining approvals from higher authorities, allegedly inserted remarks in his own handwriting, such as "approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O," just above the then PWD Minister's signature on each document. This was purportedly done to project the insertion as an instruction from the Minister. A report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad, confirmed that the handwriting matched the appellant's. The then PWD Minister, Mr. Churchill Alemao, also stated that he never directed such insertions and would typically make any additions himself.

Legal Proceedings and Charges:

Based on the vigilance report, a complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of Crime No. 6 of 2013. A chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) of the IPC, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act (criminal misconduct by a public servant). The offence of criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) was dropped due to lack of evidence.

The appellant sought discharge, but the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, dismissed his plea, framing charges under all mentioned sections. This decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court at Goa. The appellant contended that no ingredients of the offences were made out, and that his exoneration in a parallel departmental inquiry (where the standard of proof is lower) should preclude criminal proceedings.

Supreme Court's Analysis:

The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of examination at the discharge stage, stating that only material from the chargesheet can be considered, and the outcome of parallel disciplinary proceedings is irrelevant.

• IPC Charges (Sections 409 and 468): The Court found prima facie material to proceed with these charges. The allegations of dishonestly inserting words into entrusted documents (Section 409 IPC) and committing forgery with intent to cause damage or injury (Section 468 IPC) were supported by the CFSL report and the PWD Minister's statement. The Court reasoned that if the prosecution's case is taken at face value, sufficient grounds exist for these charges.
• PC Act Charges (Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)): The Supreme Court meticulously examined Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act (prior to its 2018 amendment). It observed that the chargesheet did not contain any allegation that the appellant obtained for himself or any other person "any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage" by corrupt or illegal means, or by abusing his position as a public servant. There was also no allegation of accepting gratification or dishonestly misappropriating property for personal use. Consequently, the Court concluded that the ingredients for criminal misconduct under this section were not met.

Verdict:

The Supreme Court, therefore, partly allowed the appeal. It maintained the framing of charges for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC. However, it set aside the direction to frame charges for offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of considering the discharge plea and would not bind the Trial Court during the final hearing of the case.

Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  

Section 409., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 468., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860