The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside convictions that had been recorded against four former public servants and a supplier in a long-running prosecution over alleged supply of sub-standard sluice gates and shutters for the Hasdeo canal project. A single-judge (Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) delivered a common judgment in several connected appeals and the State’s acquittal appeal, holding that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the materials were sub-standard or that the accused acted with the dishonest intention required to sustain offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The court also found no reason to disturb the trial court’s acquittal of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 808
The origins of the litigation go back to a complaint and investigation into supply orders placed in 1988–1990 for large sluice gates and related shutters. The trial court had convicted several officials and the supplier on charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy, while acquitting them on criminal misconduct charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State challenged the acquittal; the accused appealed against their convictions. The High Court heard all matters together because they arose from the same FIR and trial judgment.
In a careful, evidence-driven analysis, the High Court scrutinised the prosecution’s expert reports, measurement records and witness testimony. The court recorded that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on reports labelled Ex.P-37 and Ex.P-38 and on expert comparisons of competing design documents. But those reports, and the witnesses who relied on them, had important gaps: the expert opinion treated the canal depth as six metres when other testimony showed the canal head often did not exceed 4.95 metres; the inspectors did not consistently use precision instruments such as vernier calipers to record gauge or thickness; and seized gates and shutters bore no identifying marks tying them to the supplier. Several official witnesses conceded either that measurements had not been taken properly or that the materials they inspected could not be conclusively traced to the accused’s firm. For these and related evidentiary weaknesses, the court concluded the prosecution failed to close the “chain of evidence” required to eliminate reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The judge applied well-established principles on proof in criminal cases and on the ingredients of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The judgment cites authority stressing that deception alone is not enough; there must be proof of dishonest inducement and resultant wrongful loss. On the record before it, the court found that the prosecution had not demonstrated the key components of Section 420 deception, dishonest inducement, and wrongful loss or the meeting of minds necessary for conspiracy under Section 120-B. For the Prevention of Corruption Act counts, the court held that the trial court’s favourable view for the accused could not, without cogent contrary material, be disturbed. Accordingly, the appeals by the accused were allowed, the State’s acquittal appeal was dismissed, convictions for cheating and conspiracy were set aside, and the bail bonds of the appellants were ordered discharged.
Practically, the judgment underlines two recurring lessons for prosecution of public-works fraud: first, expert and inspection reports must be anchored to objectively verifiable measurements and properly preserved exhibits that can be traced to the supplier; second, courts will require a complete chain of circumstantial evidence before converting administrative or audit concerns into criminal guilt. For the litigants in this case, the decision brings final relief: those whose convictions were quashed are formally discharged, and the State’s attempt to secure convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act has failed on the facts the court examined.
Case Details : CRA No. 336 of 2018 with ACQA No. 797 of 2024, CRA No. 1539 of 2019, CRA No. 345 of 2018 and CRA No. 347 of 2018
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Khare, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Priyank Agrawal, Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava. Advocates in CRA No. 347 of 2018 with Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate in CRA No. 336 of 2018 and Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Mr. Manish Nigam and Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocates in CRA No. 345 of 2018 and in CRA No. 1539 of 2019
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General for the State in acquittal Appeal No. 797 of 2024