Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Major General For Alleged Corruption In Supplies For Indian Peace Keeping Force At Srilanka In 1987

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Investigating officer had filed the final report with truncated material and without scrutinising the materials in its entirety. The court also observed that the officer escaping from custody while being sent to face General court martial and thus getting the court martial proceeding time-barred had also weighed in the mind of the trial court. Thus, the court opined that benefit of doubt had to be extended to the officer.

“The conduct of the appellant, who fled from custody when he was taken to Ahmednagar to face Court martial has weighed the mind of the Court. The suspicion based on subsequent conduct and acceptance of the prosecution version without material to corroborate, warrants to interfere the decision of the trial Court,” the court observed.

The court also observed that even if the evidence against the officer was taken to be sufficient, the said procurement had to cause some loss to the Government which was absent in the present case. The court took note of the evidence from Army’s side which categorically said that the rate quoted was the lowest price and thus there was no pecuniary advantage to the officer or the supplier.

“For arguments sake even if the evidence is sufficient, taking note of the fact there is no loss to the Government since the material been supplied and utilized. The violation of purchase regulations if construed to be corrupt practice, the said corrupt practice should have led to pecuniary advantage for the public servant or for any person to whom the public servant is interested with. In this case, it is admitted and proved that the rate quoted by A3 was the least price and therefore, there cannot be any presumption of loss to the State or wrongful gain to the supplier,” the court said.

The case against Major General AK Gupta was that, while he was responsible for logistic support during Operation Pawan, he had taken advantage of his position and resorted to local purchase of Meat Tinned Kheema, at higher rates, and favoured certain firms deviating from procedures.

Major General Gupta argued that the local procurement was done taking into consideration the sudden increase of requirement for the Indian Peace Keeping Force ar Srilanka, after following all due procedures. He added that the spot decision was taken by the committee members consisting of High ranking officials but these officers were not examined by the court. He also argued that from the prosecution evidence it could be inferred that the procurement was done at lowest tender price quoted.

On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor submitted that even after stopping local purchase, Major General Gupta had issued an oral order to go for local purchase even though a sizeable stock was available.

The court however noted that the Army regulation did not prohibit local purchase and that the prosecution had not placed any material to show that the purchase was in excess or not required. The court also observed that the witnesses from Army had admitted that there was no short supply and that the supply made had been fully utilised. The court also observed that the decision to go for a local purchase was not a unilateral purchase but a collective decision. The court also noted the evidence by Lt. General Depinder Singh, who was assigned with the task of conduct 'Operation Pawan' and had deposed that the most of the decisions were taken orally to keep confidentiality and secrecy.

Thus, using the discretionary power of the court to impose lesser sentence as per proviso to Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and taking note of delay in investigation and the officer’s age, health condition, the long service that he had rendered, the court opined not to impose the minimum sentence.

Accordingly, the officer’s appeal was allowed and his conviction was set aside.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel, for Mr.A.Sasidharan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

Case Title: Major General AK Gupta v State

Case No: Crl.A.No.443 of 2013