High CourtsDivision Bench(2019) 08 CHH CK 0118

State Of Chhattisgarh vs V.S. Reddy And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 20 August 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J · Gautam Chourdiya, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP) No. 655 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 309 words

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J

1.

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Cr.M.P.

2.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 223 days in filing the Cr.M.P. is condoned.

3.

Accordingly, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of.

4.

Trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents No.1 & 2 herein from the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 420, 467 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused/respondent No.3 herein from the charge under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

5.

At the relevant time the accused V.S. Reddy was the Superintending Engineer at Hasdeo Barrage Division, Minimata Bango Dam, Machadoli, Katghora, Korba, in the Water Resources Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) whereas the accused Rampal Singh Tomar was the Divisional Accountant and accused Suresh Singh Thakur was the contractor. Accused R.S. Wadhwa was the Executive Engineer.

6.

Bids were invited for collection of toll tax over the Hasdeo Barrage Bridge for which the auction was fixed on 3-3-1994. The bids were approved by the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project on 26-3-1994, however, before that the State Government had already published the enhanced rate of collection of toll tax by notification dated 23-3-1994 w.e.f. and all the officers were informed about the said rate. The Chief Engineer was directed to conduct fresh auction but yet the auction was approved at the old rate causing whopping loss to the public exchequer.

7.

Considering the evidence available on record, we are inclined to allow the Cr.M.P. and grant leave to the State for prosecuting the acquittal appeal.

8.

As a sequel, the Cr.M.P. is allowed. Let regular acquittal appeal be registered and the same be placed before the Court for consideration in the week after next.