GHULAM DIN BUCH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 03-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GHULAM DIN BUCH ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
APRIL 3, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
(Jammu & Kashmi1) Prevention of Comtption Act, 2006 ( 1949 AD) : 
Section 5(2). 
Conspirac)~Accused causing wrongful loss to Statt~ontract given for C 
transportation of 10, 000 bamboo poles against actual need of 4, 70~n per 
kilometer per pole basis-Notice inviting tendeJJ specified this number as 
about 6,00o-No efforts made to get Govemment vehicles for transportation 
of poles-Rates paid to contractors-Unreasonable-Notice inviting 
tenders-Issued as per pre-arranged plan to Jinns of co-accused not engaged D 
in transportation business-Ultimately their tenders accepted-Held : accused 
rightly convicted-Prevention of Comtption Act, 1947, Section 5(2}-Ranbir 
Penal Code, Sections 120-B, 109/1161119-l'enal Code, 1860 Sections 120-B, 
109/1161119. 
Section 5(2) proviso-Se11tence-Mitigating circumstances-Causing E 
lvrongful loss to State-Offence conunitted about tlvo decades back-Accused 
already suffered in body and mind-Held: it was fit case for invoking proviso 
to Section 5(2}-Sentence reduced to Rl for two months-Prevention of 
Comtption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) proviso. 
Transpottation of bamboo poles-Coll/ract for-Accused effecting cost 
analysis-Justifying the higher rates tendered by contractm:1~Rates found 
unreasonabl~Matter dealt with in e:rtre1ne huny-No enqHi1y about prevail-
ing rates madi:--Held : accused 1ighlly convicted because of their apparent 
coniplicity in reconunending the acceptance of the rate~~ 
sanie as justified. 
characte1ising the 
Transpottation of bamboo poles-Between 20 to 30 feet length-Ac-
cused allowed tra11spo1tation of poles below 20 feet leitgtlt-No payment 
niade for such poles-No financial loss caused to Stat<-'--Held : accused 
F 
G 
committed no offence. 
H 
1121 
"
A 
B 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Section llJ-Non-applicability---Plea of-Oiarge of compirac.1~Ab
sence of-Effect-Close relationship existed between co11tract01:1" who acted in 
conceit-Held : absence of charge of conspiracy inter-se between colllractors 
not mate1ial. 
Code of C!iminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Section 313 : Cimunstances coming on record i11 respect of which 
accused 1101 exami11ed-Accused 11either asked about his having e11tered illlo 
C co11spiracy with anybody-Nor about rates of caniage of poles whether w1-
reaso11able or high-Held : these circumsta11ces could 11ot be used against the 
accused-Fwther these circumsta11ces being crnx of the prosecution case 
11011-providing of opportu11ity lo him lo explai11 the same rendered his convic-
tion unsustainable. 
D 
The appellants were convicted under Section 5(2) of the (Jammu & 
Kashmir) Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (1949 AD) read with Sec-
tions 120-B, 109/116/119 Ranbir Penal Code. 
According to the prosecution the appellants were entrusted \\ith the 
E work of electrification of tehsils for which a lot of bamboo poles were 
required. With the onset of the fruit season all available transport was 
diverted to carry fruits and no transport was available for electrification 
work. This apart, food grains were required to be stored in the valley and 
tehsils to cater to the needs of the people during winter season. This being 
high priority area, the concern of the Government was to see that this work 
F did not suffer for want of transport vehicles. 
The work was to arrange transport vehicles to carry required num-
ber of poles to the tehsils before the onset of winter season, after which the 
region became virtually inaccessible. This situation permitted the appel-
lants to take advantage of the same and a conspiracy was hatched to give 
G contract of transportation to such persons who showed their willingness 
to share the booty with the officers. The conspiracy came to the notice of 
the Minister as some complaints were received by him regarding giving of 
contracts of transportation to private firms on per kilometre per pole 
basis and the poles being also of sub-standard quality. The appellants had 
H effected cost analysis in extreme hurry and justified ·the rates which were 
' 
G.D. BUCHv. STATE 
1123 
found unreasonable without making any further enquiry about prevailing A 
rates. Tht:y had made no t!fti:Jrts to get Government vehicles for carriage 
.. 
of poles although trucks were availalile in the Mechanical Division. They 
had given the contract for transportation of 10,000 poles as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.