Find a Lawyer

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471, 161‑ Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5‑‑Bail, pre‑arrest‑‑No evidence forthcoming to show that tampering was done by accused‑ Prosecution conceded that relevant record was kept and maintained by another official‑‑Officer appointed for enquiry before registration of case had not considered any allegation against accused warranting criminal action‑‑Case for confirmation of anticipatory bail, held, was made out in favour of accused in circumstances‑‑Interim bail confirmed.

A. Basit for Petitioner. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Masoud Mirza for the Complainant.

The detailed facts of the case have been given in the order dated 19‑11‑1986. Same shall be read as a part and parcel of this order.

2. Learned counsel for the State states that according to the investigation conducted by Mr. Abdul Sattar, Assistant Director, Anti‑Corruption Department, the rate of the tender submitted by Musa Khan and Co. for earthwork of the road Janiwala Railway Station to Chak No.425 was Rs.140 per one thousand cubic feet, which later was altered to Rs.240 per one thousand cubic feet by tampering. Similarly, the rate given in the tender by the same Company/ Contractor for the sub‑base of the same road was Rs.709 per one hundred cubic feet, which has been altered to Rs.509 per hundred cubic feet by tampering. The tender rate given by the same contractor for the base course of the same road was Rs.765 per hundred cubic feet, which has been altered to Rs.665 per hundred cubic feet by tampering the figures.

Learned counsel informed that Sarwar and Co. had filed tender for Nazir Shaheed Road for laying sub‑base at the rate of Rs.597 per hundred cubic feet which has been tampered and altered to Rs.587 per hundred cubic feet.

3. The Assistant Director stated at no evidence has come forth against the

petitioner of having received any money as bribe.

4. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant, however, argued that the tempering in the rates was done by the petitioner in an illegal manner for showing favour to the contractors with ulterior motive for gains. It was also argued by them that alteration in rates was done to bring the acceptance of the tenders within the competence of the Executive Engineer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the case of decrease in rates, no wrongful loss occurred to the Government. He emphatically argued that the rates submitted by the two contractors, in which tampering is alleged to have been done, were the lowest, as against the rates of the other tenderers and as such there was no reason for making alterations in the rates, because if the idea was to favour the contractors for any purpose by giving them the contracts, then it was simply over‑doing as their tenders would have been accepted even otherwise, being the lowest. Learned counsel while countering the argument of the prosecution that the change in the rates was effected to bring the tenders‑‑within the competence of the Executive Engineer, pointed out that the Executive Engineer was competent to accept the tender of the projects involving expenditure upto Rs. fifteen lacs.

6. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the State/ complainant and even by the Assistant Director, A. C . D. , that no evidence has come forth that the tampering was found to have been done by the petitioner. In fact, no specific steps in this regard were taken and so there is no opinion about it.

It was conceded by the Assistant Director, A.C.D., that the record of the tenders and the register containing entries of the) tenders and tender rates is kept and maintained by the Head Clerk.

The Assistant Director also did not deny the fact that the tender rates given by the two contractors in the case of Nazir Shaheed Road and in the case of Janiwala Railway Station to Chak No.425, where the rates have been lowered by altering the figures, the rates given by the two contractors were lowest in comparison with the tender rates of the competing contractors. That means that there was no difficulty in accepting those tenders, the same being at lowest rate. The argument of the prosecution that the alterations were done to bring the tenders within the competence of the Executive Engineer does not possess any weight because the Executive Engineer is competent to accept the tenders of the projects involving expenditure to the tune of rupees fifteen lacs.

7. The Officer, who was appointed for inquiry before the registration of the case, had not considered any allegation against) the petitioner, warranting criminal action.

8. The facts and reasons noted above and recorded in the order dated 19‑11‑1986 make out a case for confirmation of anticipatory bail. The same is, therefore, confirmed. The petitioner shall, however, file fresh bail bonds. He shall join the investigation as and when called.

M . Y . H . / A‑166/L Anticipatory bail confirmed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.