State
of Kerala Vs. M.T. Anandan & Anr [1998]
INSC
1 (5 January 1998)
G.T.
Nanavati, S.S.M. Quadri Nanavati, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
State has filed this appeal as the High Court of Kerala acquitted the
respondents by setting aside their convictions under Sections 5 (2) and 5 (1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 109 and 120- B of
the Indian Penal Code. Alongwith the two respondents, two others were also
tried for the said offences in the court of the Special Judge, Trichur, in
Criminal Case No.18/82.
Smt. Bitchu
- A.2 was the owner of M/s. Latex India Ltd. and M/s. Excellent Rubber and
Allied Industries. But as a matter of fact, both the industries were managed by
her husband Abdulla koya A.3.
The
prosecution case was that A.2 and A.3 in conspiracy with Anandan - A.1, who was
the District Industries officers, and A.4, who was a Technical Supervisor,
entered into a conspiracy to obtain for A.2 and A.3 more quantity of Titanium
dioxide than what was really required by them for their industries and pursuant
to that conspiracy A.1. issued two Essentiality Certificates, Ex. P. 35(a) and
P.36(a), entitling M/s. Latex India Ltd. to
get 300 kilograms of Titanium Dioxide per month and M/s. Excellent and Rubber
and Allied Industries to get 2000 kilograms of Titanium dioxide per Month. In
substance, the allegation against them was that this much quantity of titanium
dioxide was not required by them and A.1 - Anandan abusing his official
position had wrongly issued the two Essentiality Certificates which entitled
them to obtain more titanium dioxide which entitled them to obtain more
titanium dioxide which could later be sold in the market at a higher price.
The
trial court relied upon the evidence of PW 4, who was the Deputy Director
(Controls), PW 7 - Narayanan Nambiar and PW 17 - PR Pillai, the commercial
Manager and the two documents - P.35 (c) and P.35 (d) and held that A. 1 had
issued the said Essentiality Certificates fro much lager quantity than that
required by A.2 and A.3. As A.2 was not taking any interest in the management
of the two concerns and as A.4 had not taken any part in issuing the
Essentiality certificates, they were acquitted but A.1 and A.3 came to be
convicted for the offences mentioned above.
The
High court on reappreciation of the evidence found that there was nothing to
show that titanium dioxide was a scare commodity or that its distribution and
price were controlled. it also came to the conclusion that there is nothing on
the record to show that the said two firms did not require that much quantity
for their use. The High Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and acquitted both
the respondents.
We
have gone through the judgments of the trial court and the High Court and also
the relevant evidence. We find that the prosecution had not led any evidence to
prove that titanium dioxide was a scarce commodity or that its distribution and
price were controlled by any statutory provision or an administrative order. We
also find that the prosecution had failed to establish that in 1969 when the
two certificates were issued, the two factories were either closed or that they
did not require the quantity of titanium dioxide for which they had obtained
the Essentiality Certificates. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said
that by issuing the Essentiality Certificates, Ex. P. 35(a) and Ex. P. 36(a).
A.1 had abused its official position in any manner. The High court was,
therefore, justified in acquitting both the respondents.
We,
therefore, dismiss these appeals. Bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.
Back
