Edmund S Lyngdoh Vs State of Meghalaya

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 553/2011)

EDMUND S LYNGDOH …Appellant

Versus

STATE OF MEGHALAYA …Respondent

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2057-58 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2203-2204/2011)

DEVA PRASAD SHARMA …Appellant

Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.)

Nos. 2203-2204/2011 are filed challenging the judgment of

Page 2

the Gauhati High Court confirming the conviction of the

appellant-first accused (Deva Prasad Sharma) under Section

420 IPC, 120B IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’) and

enhancement of the sentence imposed on him. Fourth

accused (Edmund S. Lyngdoh) has preferred SLP (Crl.)

No.553/2011 challenging the reversal of his acquittal and

assailing the conviction under Section 420 IPC read with

Section 120B IPC.

3. Deva Prasad Sharma (A-1) died on 9.10.2011

during the pendency of the petition before this Court and his

legal representative was brought on record by this Court’s

Order dated 14.11.2011 in Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP

(Crl.) Nos.2203-2204/11 and his son Debashish Sharma

is pursuing the appeal.

4. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that

Deva Prasad Sharma (First accused) was the then Chief

Engineer of North Eastern Hill University, Shillong (for short

‘NEHU’), Stetnel Roy (A-2) was the Accounts Officer, W.M.R.

Wahlang (third accused) was the then Assistant Finance

2

Page 3

Officer, Edmund S. Lyngdoh, proprietor of M/s E.S. Enterprise

(A-4) and T.S. Bareh, proprietor of M/s Premiere Enterprise

(A-5), N.P. Garg, Executive Engineer, Shri G.L. Sharma,

Jr. Engineer, Sanjay, Sr. Technical Assistant and Shri H.

Nongkynrih, Section Officer, Construction Division of NEHU

have colluded together for procurement of Damp Seal

Cement from some fictitious and non-existent firms at an

exorbitant rate during the year 1982 to mid 1985. In

furtherance of this collusion, it is alleged that A-1 invited

quotation on 12.12.1982 from 12 firms for supply of Damp

Proof Cement (DPC) at the rate of Rs.42.75 per kg. though

the then actual market rate was Rs.5/- to Rs.7/- per kg.

Even though the Purchase Committee had approved only

two firms for supplying the materials, A-1 is alleged to have

placed orders from many firms and persons without

ascertaining the available stock and actual requirement

which resulted in leaving huge quantities of the materials

so purchased unused. On the basis of the complaint lodged

by Dr. B.D. Sharma, the then Vice-Chancellor of NEHU, case

was registered and investigation was taken up by the CBI. In

3

Page 4

the course of investigation, CBI found a prima facie case

against A-1 to A-3, Shri Edmund S. Lyngdoh, the owner of

the firm M/s E.S. Enterprises (A-4), Shri T.S. Bareh of

M/s. Premiere Enterprises (A-5) and other suppliers and

charge sheeted them under Section 120B IPC read with

Section 420 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with 5 (1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. At the investigation

stage, others were dropped from the case and chargesheet

was filed only against A-1 to A-5. The trial court framed the

charges against A-1 to A-3 under Sections 120B IPC read

with 420 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of

the PC Act, 1947, to which they pleaded not guilty. As far as

A-4 and A-5 are concerned, charges were framed against

them under Sections 120B IPC and 420 IPC. The trial court

convicted A-1 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420

IPC and under Section 5(2) of the PC Act and sentenced him

to undergo imprisonment. A-2 to A-5 were acquitted of the

charges.

5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of A-2 to A-5 and

also seeking for enhancement of punishment for the first

4

Page 5

accused, CBI preferred appeal before the High Court

challenging his conviction and sentence of imprisonment

imposed by the trial court. Both the appeals were heard

together and the learned single Judge of the Gauhati High

Court enhanced the punishment imposed on the first

accused, and dismissed the appeal preferred by the first

accused. The details of conviction of A-1 and the sentences

imposed on him by the trial court and enhancement of

sentence by the High Court is as under:

Trial Court High Court Conviction Sentence Conviction Sentence

Section 120B of IPC

4 months SI & fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo SI for two months.

Section 120B IPC

3 years RI and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year.

Section 420 IPC 6 months of SI and fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo SI for 2 months.

Section 420 IPC

5 years RI and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year.

Section 5(2) PC Act

1 year of SI & fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo SI for two months.

Section 5(2)(d) of P.C. Act.

5 years RI and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year.

6. A-2 died during the pendency of appeal before the

High Court. The acquittal of accused 3 to 5 was reversed

5

Page 6

and they were convicted under Sections 120B IPC and 420

IPC. So far as imposing the quantum of sentence, the High

Court remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction

to pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the

Accused 3 to 5 in regard to the quantum of sentence under

Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the order of

reversal of acquittal, the appellants are before us. Pursuant

to the order of this Court dated 31.01.2011, trial court

passed order imposing sentence upon fourth accused. For

the conviction under Section 420 IPC and Section 120B IPC,

fourth accused was imposed sentence of imprisonment of

five years and three years respectively and fine was also

imposed.

7. We have heard the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellants and the respondents and we have

given our due consideration to the same.

8. Re: Criminal Appeal qua first accused Deva Prasad

Sharma (since dead) : First accused was the Chief Engineer

of the NEHU at the relevant time and the first accused and

A-2 and A3 were Technical Members in the Purchase

6

Page 7

Committee. On 12.12.1982, first accused invited sealed

quotations from 12 firms for the supply of Damp Proof

Cement (DPC) without mentioning the quantity and quality

required. In response, quotations were received from six

firms and the same were scrutinized on 6.4.1983 which is

said to be in contravention of norms and procedure and the

rate of Rs.42.75 per kg quoted by M/s. Premiere Enterprises

(A-5) and M/s. Edmund S. Lyngdoh (A-4) were found to be

the lowest and after making comparative statement, A-1

appended his initial with date.

9. On 7.04.1983, A-1 placed order upon four different

firms of A-4 – M/s Edmund S. Lyngdoh and M/s Premiere

Enterprise belonging to T.S. Bareh (A-5) for supply of 2

metric tones (MT) each at the quoted price of Rs. 42.75 per

kg. On 04.06.1983 in terms of the order placed and the

prices quoted, fourth accused through his firm M/s Edmund

S. Lyngdoh and M/s E.S. Enterprise and also M/s T.S. Bareh

supplied DPC at the rate of Rs.42.75 per kg. On 06.07.1983,

the Purchase Committee of NEHU, in which first accused was

the Technical Member approved the rate of Rs. 42.75 per kg

7

Page 8

quoted by the fourth accused and M/s Premiere Enterprises

for purchase of DPC.

10. The learned counsel for the first accused

contended that there is no evidence to show that A-1 had

induced the Purchase Committee to approve the rates of

two firms M/s Premiere Enterprises and M/s Edmunds S.

Lyngdoh- fourth accused at the rate of Rs.42.75 per kg. and

as the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, there

was no question of A-1 inducing the Purchase Committee by

deception to purchase DPC at an exorbitant price and it

was the Purchase Committee which on its own approved

the rate on the basis of comparative statement of the prices

quoted by the tenderers as prepared by the officials.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that quotations were floated by the first accused even prior

to the matter being taken up by the Purchase Committee

and as the Chief Engineer of NEHU- first accused must have

known the then prevailing market rate and as Technical

Member of the Purchase Committee the first accused should

have assisted the non-technical members in the purchase of

8

Page 9

DPC at the then prevalent market rate. The learned counsel

submitted that adequate evidence has been adduced by the

prosecution to bring home the guilt of first accused that he

induced the Purchase Committee to purchase DPC at an

inflated rate of Rs.42.75 per kg.

12. PW-6, Sri O.D. Shira, the then Assistant Registrar

of Administration, NEHU during 1983 was the convener of

the Purchase Committee and he called for a meeting of the

Purchase Committee on 6.7.1983. Ext. P1 is the file relating

to Purchase Committee Meeting held on 6.7.1983. As per

Ext.P1 (1), there was no agenda for the purchase of DPC.

However, the first accused managed to introduce the item

before the Purchase Committee, agenda found place in

resolution no.14 [Ext. P1 (5)] relates to the purchase of

Damp Seal Water Proofing Compound for use in the

department campus at Umshing. Purchase Committee

accepted the lowest rate of Rs.42.75 per kg quoted by the

appellant/fourth accused and M/s. Premiere Enterprises,

Jowai. Based on the evidence of PW-6 and Resolution vide

P1(5), trial court and the High Court recorded concurrent

9

Page 10

findings of fact that before ever the Purchase Committee

approved the rate, quotations were already invited by

accused No.1 and A-1 being one of the technical members in

the Purchase Committee managed to introduce the item in

the meeting of the Purchase Committee for approving the

rate quoted by fourth accused and M/s Premiere

Enterprises at the rate of Rs.42.75 per kg as A-1 was taken

into confidence by the Purchase Committee.

13. In her evidence PW-9, Smt. M.R. Mawlong who

was the then Registrar of NEHU from February 1980 to

March 1984 stated that first accused being the Chief

Engineer was the Technical Member of the Purchase

Committee and “Purchase Committee depended on the

suggestion of the Technical Member who was in the rank of

a Chief Engineer as regards the rate of DPC”. The object of

having technical members in the Purchase Committee was

with a view to assist the non-technical members

concerning any matter of technical nature and to guide

them, as regards the utility, prevailing rate and the

quantity required of the said item for the Institution. Role of

10

Page 11

the Technical Members in the Purchase Committee becomes

vital and important and it was expected that the Technical

Members namely the first accused (Deva Prasad Sharma)

and the second and third accused are to contribute their

technical knowledge and give their best possible opinion,

suggestion and advice to the Purchase Committee in making

purchases of quality materials at the prevalent market rate.

We find no substance in the contention that there is nothing

to show that the technical members first accused and A-2

and A-3 have misled the Purchase Committee and that

Purchase Committee had taken the decision on its own to

make purchase of DPC.

14. There is ample evidence and circumstances

justifying the conclusion of the trial court and High Court that

the Purchase Committee was misled by the first accused to

approve the quotation of fourth accused – M/s Edmund S.

Lyngdoh and M/s Premiere Enterprises at the inflated rate of

Rs.42.75 per kg. To fortify the same, we may briefly refer to

few facts and circumstances as recorded by the trial court

and the High Court:

11

Page 12

(i) Before the approval of the rate by the Purchase Committee, five quotations for supply of the DPC invited by A-1 on his own were already in existence;

(ii) As per Ext. P1 (1), there was no agenda for the purchase of DPC in the meeting of Purchase Committee held on 6.7.1983 and the said agenda was introduced in Resolution No. 14 vide Ext.P1 (5) with regard to purchase of DPC and A-1 being a Technical Member in the Purchase Committee managed to introduce the item for purchase of DPC as one of the agendas;

(iii) First accused being the Chief Engineer did not take steps for survey through quotation or by any other method to ascertain the then prevailing market rate of DPC;

(iv) Purchase Committee depended on the suggestion of the Technical Members - first accused and others as regards the rate of DPC;

(v) First accused did not ascertain the available stock of DPC or the actual requirement of DPC for NEHU;

(vi) First accused invited quotations from 12 firms out of which only two firms were approved firms by Purchase Committee.

15. Learned counsel for A-1 submitted that from the

evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be

conclusively held that the then prevalent market rate of

12

Page 13

DPC was Rs. 5/- to Rs. 6/- per kg. at the relevant time

inasmuch as no documentary evidence to that effect or any

price list of DPC in the open market at that time was

produced by the prosecution and while so the courts have

grossly erred in convicting A-1 on the basis of oral

testimony. It was further contended that the High Court

erred in placing reliance upon the answers of A-1 recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as one piece of evidence to

complete the link in the chain of circumstances against the

first accused.

16. To prove that the then market rate of DPC at

Shillong was ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/- per kg,

prosecution has adduced adequate evidence. PW-5, Sri

Satinder Bawa who is the Director of firm Bawa Paints Pvt.

Ltd. which manufacture paints and water proof compound

since the year 1965 and the products of his firms are sold

to various distributors including M/s Premiere Enterprises

and others and all over the North Eastern States including

Meghalaya and Jowai area and the products were sold

during 1982-1983 also. In his evidence PW-5 stated that

13

Page 14

during 1982-1984, 50 Kg. of Damp Proof Cement were sold

at the rate between Rs. 80/- to Rs.85/- at Delhi plus taxes

and one kilogram packet, used to be sold at Rs. 2.80/- to Rs.

3.80/- at Delhi. PW 5 further stated that in Shillong, the rate

of one kilogram of DPC would then be in the range of Rs. 6/-

to Rs. 7/- per kg. which is inclusive of taxes,

transportation and profit.

17. PW-16, Sri Santosh Kumar Chachan is the

proprietor of M/s Gajanand Chachan of Barabazar, Shillong

which deals with hardware, paints and building materials

including water proofing cement. As per the evidence of

PW-5, PW-16 M/s Gajanand Chachan is also one of the firms

to whom DPC and paints was supplied by PW-5.

Corroborating the evidence of PW-5, PW-16 stated that his

firm was dealing with water proofing cement during

1982-1984 and he used to purchase paints and water

proofing cement from Delhi, Calcutta and sometimes from

Gauhati during 1983-1984, and prices of water proofing

cement during that period was Rs. 5/- per kg. which was

sold at Shillong. From the evidence of PWs 5 and 16, it is

14

Page 15

amply established that the market rate of DPC at the

relevant time was Rs. 2.80 to Rs. 3.80 per kg in Delhi and in

Shillong, the rate was Rs.6/- to Rs.7/- per kg and the rate at

Rs.42.75 per kg. is an inflated one and the quotations

submitted by fourth accused and accepted by first accused

was with ulterior motive.

18. Apart from establishing the then prevailing

market rate by examining PWs 5 and 16, prosecution has

also examined PW-13, Sri N.P. Garg who has worked in NEHU

since 1984 as Executive Engineer who is also aware of the

use of Damp Seal Cement in the construction work. Through

PW-13, Ext.P5, the Work File for the construction work of

Intake Water Tank at Wahjarain for the period of 6.9.1983

and by item 7 (17) Rs.10/- per kg. was paid for Water

Proofing Compound (DPC) along with other item and the

work was done by contractor Hansraj Jain and the amount

was paid to him. Referring to the evidence of PW-13 and

Ext.P5, the trial court and the High Court recorded findings

of fact that the defence neither impeached his credibility nor

challenged Ext.P5 Bill as per which Rs.10/- per kg. was paid

15

Page 16

for DPC for water proofing compound and that Ext.P5 would

be corroborative evidence so far as the rate of water

proofing compound (DPC) was Rs. 10/- per kg. during the

period of 1983. From the evidence of PW-5 and PW-16, the

dealers in DPC, and from the earlier Work File (Ext.P5) as

spoken by PW-13, the prosecution has clearly established

that the then prevalent market rate of DPC was Rs.5/- to

Rs.10/- per kg.

19. Before placing the subject for purchase of DPC in

Purchase Committee Meeting held on 6.07.1983, as pointed

out by the trial court, no survey was conducted nor any

other method was adopted by first accused for ascertaining

the then prevalent market rate of DPC. During questioning

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when the first accused was

questioned about the then prevalent market rate of DPC,

first accused stated that he was not aware of the same.

Referring to the same, the High Court observed that it is an

evasive reply and the same was taken as a piece of evidence

against the accused to complete the chain of circumstances.

16

Page 17

20. Insofar as contention taking the statement of first

accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., as an evidence

it was submitted that the statement under Section 313 Cr.

P.C. cannot be taken as an incriminating evidence against

the accused. Of course, the High Court in extenso referred

to the statements of the first accused put to him in his

cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and observed

as under:-

“A-1 did not utter a single word to assail that the market rate of DPC at Shillong at the relevant time was ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/-. All that he said was that he was not aware of the market rate of a DPC at that time or that Rs.42.75 was accepted and approved rate of DPC. These evasive replies, taken together with evidence of PW-6 and PW-13 and item no. 7(17) of Ext. P-5, complete the link in the chain of circumstances against A-1”.

After so observing, the High Court held that those evasive

replies under Section 313 Cr. P.C. taken together with the

evidence complete the link in the chain of circumstances

against A-1.

21. Where the accused gives evasive answers in his

cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an adverse

17

Page 18

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. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an

evidence. In Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr. vs. State of Assam

(2007) 11 SCC 467, this Court held that conviction of the

accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which cannot be regarded as

evidence. It is only the stand or version of the accused by

way of explanation explaining the incriminating

evidence/circumstances appearing against him. The

statement made in defence by the accused under Section

313 Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to

other evidence led by the prosecution. Statements made

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be considered not in isolation

but in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence.

22. In the present case, it is not as if the High Court

arrived at the conclusion and based conviction only on the

statement made by the first accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C. As seen from the reasonings of the High Court

18

Page 19

extracted above, the statement of first accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken with the evidences of PW-6

and PW-13 and items 7(17) of Ext. P5 as a link to complete

the chain of circumstances against A-1. As elaborated

earlier, the answers given by the first accused were

considered not in isolation but in conjunction with other oral

and documentary evidence. We find no substance in the

contention that the High Court erred in taking the statement

of first accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as a link to

complete the chain of circumstances.

23. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings

of fact that the Purchase Committee consisting of the non-

technical members, the first accused being a Technical

Member played a dominant and crucial role in inducing the

Purchase Committee to purchase DPC at an inflated rate of

Rs. 42.75 per kg. when the then prevalent market rate at

the relevant period was Rs. 5/- to Rs. 10/- per kg. and we

see no perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the

courts.

19

Page 20

24. Contention regarding validity of sanction: Ext.P19

is the sanction order for prosecution against A-1 and the

same was under the signature of the then Chief Secretary,

Government of Meghalaya. PW-18, Sri Kharkongor,

Secretary in the Political Department, Government of

Meghalaya was examined through whom Ext. P9 sanction

order was exhibited.

25. Learned counsel for A-1 contended that under

Section 6 of PC Act “no court shall take cognizance of

offence unless previous sanction is obtained……..” and so

far as A-1 is concerned, Chief Secretary is not the competent

authority to remove A-1 and A-1 was appointed by the

Governor and the Governor of Meghalaya is the appointing

authority, and therefore the sanction should be to the

satisfaction of the Governor and Chief Secretary is only the

authority communicating the sanction and the prosecution

has not adduced any material to show that appointing

authority – Governor of Meghalaya was satisfied that the

relevant material to approve the sanction for prosecuting A-

1 was placed before him.

20

Page 21

26. The learned counsel for the respondents had taken

us through the evidence of PW-18 and submitted that the

Chief Secretary accorded the sanction on the basis of report

of CBI placed before him and other materials as reflected in

the note sheet of the file and then accorded the sanction for

prosecuting A-1 and there is valid sanction for prosecution

of A-1. Referring to the evidence of PW-18, the courts

observed that the then Chief Secretary accorded the

sanction on the basis of the report of CBI as reflected in the

note sheet of the file and the sanction order does not suffer

from any infirmity.

27. As per Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India,

all orders and other instruments made and executed in the

name of Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as

may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor and

the validity of an order or instrument which is so

authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground

that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by

the Governor. It was not suggested to PW-18 that Chief

Secretary has no power whatsoever to authenticate the

21

Page 22

orders and instruments made and executed in the name of

Governor. During trial, the first accused also did not insist

for production of the file nor suggested that the sanction

order was not approved by the Governor. Referring to

Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the trial court

observed that the State must be having certain rules where

orders and other instruments made and executed in the

name of the Governor to be authenticated by certain officers

of the State Government, the trial court negatived the

contention of the first accused challenging the validity of

sanction. We find no merit in the contention challenging the

validity of sanction to prosecute first accused.

28. Contention regarding delay in lodging FIR: The

accused A-1 in collusion with other accused persons invited

quotations on 12.12.1982 from the 12 firms for the supply

of Damp Proof Cement (DPC) and DPC was procured during

1982 to mid 1985. Ext.P11 complaint was lodged by Dr. B.D.

Sharma, Vice Chancellor, NEHU, Shillong, Meghalaya on

3.7.1985 based on which FIR was registered. On behalf of

the appellant/first accused it was contended that FIR was

22

Page 23

registered nearly after two years which creates serious

doubts about its genuineness, more so, when the Vice

Chancellor on whose complaint FIR was registered was not

examined as a witness.

29. Per contra, the learned counsel for the prosecution

submitted that DPC was procured during 1982 to mid 1985

and the offence being a continuing offence and it cannot be

said that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and non-

examination of the complainant-Vice Chancellor was not

fatal to the prosecution case.

30. Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not necessarily

fatal to the prosecution case. As rightly contended by the

learned counsel for the respondent-CBI, supply of DPC was

continuously made from 1982 to mid 1985 and it was a

continuing offence. In matters of continuing offence no

duration of time can be fixed for lodging the complaint.

First accused in collusion with other accused persons

induced the Purchase Committee for purchase of DPC at an

exorbitant rate of Rs.42.75 per kg and only when the

conspiracy came to the fore, the Vice-Chancellor lodged the

23

Page 24

complaint. In cases of abuse of powers and obtaining

pecuniary advantage and causing wrongful loss, time of

lodging complaint and registration of FIR cannot be

considered on the touchstone of prompt lodging of

complaint like other cases of murder, dacoity and assault

etc., where there are possibilities of exaggeration and

embellishments being crept in. In cases of abuse of position

by the persons holding official position, and causing

wrongful loss, prosecution case is based on documentary

evidence and oral evidence of other official witnesses and

hardly any possibility of concoction and introduction of

coloured version. We find no merit in the contention that

the delay in lodging FIR raises doubts about the genuineness

of the prosecution case.

31. The gist of the offence under Section 5(1)(d) is

that a public officer abusing his position as a Public Servant

obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable

thing or pecuniary advantage. The word “abuse” means,

misuse i.e. using his position for something for which it is not

intended. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the trial

24

Page 25

court and the High Court recorded the concurrent findings of

fact that first accused, Chief Engineer being Technical

Member of the Purchase Committee, it was his duty to

advise the Purchase Committee about the then prevailing

market rate of DPC to enable NEHU to purchase DPC at the

market rate. The first accused was primarily responsible for

the commission of the offence and the first accused by

abusing his position as Chief Engineer and Technical Member

got the inflated rate of DPC at Rs.42.75 per kg approved

when the same was available in the local market at price

ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/- per kg. and A-1 obtained

pecuniary advantage to himself and also to accused 4 and 5

and caused wrongful loss to NEHU to the tune of Rs.49 lacs.

The first accused was rightly convicted under Sections 120B

IPC and 420 IPC and also under Section 5(2)(d) of the PC Act.

Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the extent of

loss caused to the NEHU, the High Court rightly enhanced

the sentence of imprisonment imposed for various offences

for which the first accused was convicted and we find no

reason to interfere with the same. The appeal preferred by

25

Page 26

the first accused and now pursued by his legal

representative fails and the same is dismissed.

32. Re: Criminal Appeal qua the fourth

accused - Edmund S. Lyngdoh: The fourth accused Edmund

S. Lyngdoh, the proprietor of M/s Edmund S. Lyngdoh, had

also supplied DPC to NEHU at the rate of Rs.42.75 per kg.

Being the dealer, dealing with DPC, Edmund must have

known the market rate of DPC; the then market rate of DPC

which was ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs. 10/- in those days.

Even if A-1 was silent on the said market price, fourth

accused, Edmund must have disclosed the market rate of

DPC and must have quoted the then prevalent market price

of DPC which was ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/; but the

fourth accused quoted inflated price of Rs. 42.75 per kg in

order to make wrongful gain to himself and to cause

wrongful loss to NEHU.

33. To bring home the guilt of the criminal conspiracy,

prosecution should prove ; (i) that the accused agreed to do

or caused to be done an act that was illegal or was to be

done by illegal means; (ii) that some overt act was done by

26

Page 27

one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement. 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 120B IPC. First accused is alleged to

have conspired with fourth accused and others to supply

DPC at an inflated price to NEHU of Rs. 42.75 per kg as

against the then prevalent market rate of Rs.5/- to Rs.10/-

per kg. In furtherance of the conspiracy, fourth accused

supplied Six MTs of DPC and thereby said to have caused

wrongful loss of about Rs. 6 lacs to NEHU.

34. Agreement among the conspirators can be

inferred by necessary implications, and the inference can be

drawn on the proved facts. The facts and incriminating

circumstances so proved must form the full chain whereby

the agreement between the accused and their guilt can be

safely inferred. Fourth accused supplied DPC to NEHU at an

inflated rate of Rs. 42.75 per kg and had obtained pecuniary

advantage for himself and also to first accused and thereby

caused wrongful loss to NEHU. In the light of evidence and

27

Page 28

proved facts, the High Court rightly reversed the acquittal

and convicted the fourth accused under Section 120B IPC.

35. So far as the fourth accused is concerned, he was

also convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The

offence of cheating is made of two ingredients: “deception

of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that

person to deliver any property to any person or to consent

that any person shall retain any property”. In collusion with

first accused, the fourth accused quoted and supplied DPC at

an inflated rate of Rs.42.75 per kg, fourth accused

dishonestly induced NEHU to purchase DPC. Fourth accused

has taken stand that he did not know the then prevalent

market rate of DPC at Shillong. As a supplier and also

dealing with DPC, it is incomprehensible that the fourth

accused did not know the prevalent market rate. The High

Court rightly negatived the defence version and convicted

the fourth accused under Section 420 IPC read with Section

120B IPC.

36. The High Court remitted the matter to the trial

court to hear the accused on the question of sentence and

28

Page 29

pass appropriate orders. In the meanwhile, the fourth

accused preferred appeal in this Court and also filed an

application seeking for a direction to the trial court not to

pass sentence. By order dated 31.01.2011 this court

ordered that trial court will proceed on the sentence and

pass appropriate orders.

37. By order dated 14.06.2011, the trial court

sentenced the fourth accused to undergo five years rigorous

imprisonment with fine of Rs. one lakh with default clause for

the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC; for the

offence under Section 120B IPC fourth accused was

sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment

with a fine of Rs.50,000/- alongwith default clause and both

the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The fourth

accused had undergone sentence of imprisonment from

14.06.2011 till 16.02.2012 totally 248 days. By the order of

this Court dated 16.02.2012, the sentence imposed on fourth

accused was ordered to be suspended subject to the

petitioner/fourth accused depositing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-

roughly representing 50% of the excess amount allegedly

29

Page 30

gained by him towards the price of the DPC supplied. The

fourth accused is stated to be seventy years old and is said

to be undergoing treatment for Type II Diabetes. The matter

is lingering on for about three decades.

38. Having regard to the duration of the pendency of

the matter and age of the fourth accused and that he has

already paid fine amount and also deposited the amount as

per the order of this Court, in our view, the period of

sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant-fourth

accused for the conviction under Section 420 IPC and

Section 120B IPC shall be modified to the period already

undergone and by imposing further fine amount of Rs.

2,50,000/- in addition to the fine imposed by the trial court

and the amount deposited pursuant to the orders of this

Court. In default of payment of the said fine amount of

Rs.2,50,000/-, the fourth accused shall undergo

imprisonment of one year.

39. The appeal preferred by first accused now pursued

by his legal representative is dismissed. The appeal

30

Page 31

preferred by fourth accused (Edmund S. Lyngdoh) is partly

allowed to the extent indicated above.

…………………………………J (T.S. Thakur)

…………………………………..J (R. Banumathi)

New Delhi; September 16, 2014

31

EDMUND S LYNGDOH Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA

EDMUND S LYNGDOH Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA