LexEDMUNDS LYNGDOH versus STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·A B [2014] 10 S.C.R. 458 EDMUNDS LYNGDOH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA (Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 420, 1208; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: s.5(2) -A-1, the Chief Engineer of North C Eastern Hill University (NEHU) - Allegation that A-1 along with other officials of NEHU formed a Purchase Committee - All of them colluded together for procurement of cement at exorbitant rates from A-4 and A-5 during period 1982 to 1985 - The exorbitant rates were accepted without conducting any D survey for ascertaining the then prevalent market rate of cement - Conviction of A-1 u/ ss.420, 1208 /PC and s.5(2) of 1947 Act and of A-4 uls.420 r/w s.1208 /PC challenged - Held: There was ample evidence that the Purchase Committee was misled by A-1 to approve the quotation of A- E 4 at inflated rate - Based on oral and documentary evidence, courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the Purchase Committee consisted of the non-technical members and A-1 being a Technical Member played a dominant role in inducing the Purchase Committee to purchase cement at F an inflated rate -A·1 was rightly convicted by the courts below - As regards A-4, being the dealer, he quoted inflated price in order to make wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to NEHU and, therefore, he was rightly convicted u/s. 420 rlw s. 120-B - However, in view of age of A-4 and G duration of pendency of matter, sentence of A-4 modified to period already undergone. H Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313 - Held: Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination 458 EDMUND S LYNGDOH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA 4·59 uls.313, an adverse inference can be drawn against him- But A ::uch inference cannot be a substitute for the evidence which the prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the accused. Delay!Laches: Delay in lodging FIR - Held: In continuing B offence, no duration of time can be fixed for lodging FIR. Partly allowing the appeal of A4 and dismissing the appeal of A-1, the Court HELD: 1. There was ample evidence and C circumstances that the Purchase Committee was misled by A-1 to approve the quotation of A-4 at the inflated rate of Rs.42.75 per kg. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when A-1 was questioned about the then prevalent market rate of cement, he stated that he was not aware of the same. Referring to the same, the High Court observed that it was an evasive reply and the same was taken as a piece of evidence against him to complete the chain of circumstances. Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But such inference cannot be a substitute for the evidence which the prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the accused. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the Purchase Committee consisted of the non-technical members and A-1 being a Technical Member played a dominant and crucial role in inducing the Purchase Committee to purchase cement D E F at an inflated rate when the market rate at the relevant period was Rs. 5/- to Rs. 10/- per kg. There was no G perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts. [Paras 14, 19, 21 to 23] [467-D; 470-C-D; 471-B- C; 472-A-C] H 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A Bishnu Prasad Sinha & anr. State of Assam (2007) 11 sec 467 - relied on. 2. Delay in lodging FIR. A-1 in collusion with other accused persons invited quotations on 12.12.1982 from 8 the 12 firms for the supply of cement and DPC was procured during 1982 to mid 1985. The complaint was lodged by Vice Chancellor on 3.7.1985 based on which FIR was registered. Delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case as supply of cement was continuously made from 1982 to mid 1985 and it was a C continuing offence. In matters of continuing offence no duration of time can be fixed for lodging the complaint. [Paras 28, 30) [473-F-G; 474-8-C) 3. Being the dealer, A-4 quoted inflated price in order D to make wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to NEHU. The essence of conspiracy is that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts constituting the act under Section 1208 IPC. The facts and incriminating c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.