V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

                         [2011) 2 S.C.R. 762

A                     V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN
                                   V.
                 R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2006)

                        FEBRUARY 10, 2011
B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

        CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

c     Appeal against acquittal -Jurisdiction of appellate court
  -Held: The Code puts no limitation on exercise of powers of
  appellate court either on questions of fact or of law -However,
  an appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
  there is double presumption in favour of accused -
0 Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 136.
        CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950 :

        Article 136 -Appeal by way of special leave - Filed by
  non-complainant/non party -Maintainability of -Conviction by
E trial court of a Minister and higher officials of State Electricity
  Board -For entering into conspiracy and awarding contract to
  accused-contractor at exorbitant rates causing huge loss to
  Board -Acquittal by High Court - Appeal by erstwhile leader
  of opposition party -Held: In the instant case, certain special
F features exist -State has not filed appeal -Taking note of the
  importance of the issue, appellant had earlier approached the
  Supreme Court when State wanted to close the prosecution
  against all the accused including the Minister, and accepting
  appellant's claim Special Judge was allowed to proceed in the
G case, which culminated in conviction of the accused by the
  Special Court -No objection as to locus of the appellant was
  raised on the earlier occasion -In view of the special
  circumstances, the instant appeal by the appellant against

                                  762
H
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 763
                   & ORS.
  order of acquittal passed by the High Court is maintainable   A
, -Locus standi.

     PENAL CODE, 1860 :

        ss. 120-B and 409, and ss. 5(1)(C) and 5(2) of Prevention
  of Corruption Act read withs. 120-B /PC -Contract awarded B
  by State Electricity Board to accused-contractor on exorbitant
  rates -Member of the Board, Member of Consultative Council
  of the Board, Minister for Electricity in the State Government,
  the contractor along with others prosecuted -Death of
  contractor and another accused -Conviction by trial court of C
  the Member of the Board, Member of its Consultative Council
  and the Minister -Acquittal by High Court -Held : The Board
  is empowered with the authority to award contracts, but being
  a Public Undertaking it is not expected to accept tenders at
  exorbitant rates causing loss to the Board -Except on policy D
  matters the State Government had no role to play in the affairs
  of the Board -The evidence clearly shows that the Minister
  concerned used to interfere in awarding contracts of the Board
' and the accused-contractor had been chosen in advance by
  him -The evidence indicates that the conspiracy to award the E
  work to the accused-contractor at exorbitant rates originated
  even prior to submission of tenders -Special Court has rightly
  concluded that a criminal conspiracy was hatched out at the
  instance of the Minister concerned and the Member of the
   Consultative Council -Prosecution has established against F
   the three accused-appellants that the contract was awarded
   to the accused-contractor at and exorbitant rates -Besides the
   accused-contractor was favoured with special conditions in the
   contract causing further loss to the Board - There were
  procedural irregularities and omissions in dealing with the G
   tenders and hasty steps were taken in awarding the contract
   in favour of the accused-contractor- Special Court accepting
   the prosecution case, rightly convicted the accused -High
   Court committed grave error in acquitting the accused without
   adverting to reliable and acceptable evidence adduced by H
    764     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A prosecution -Judgment of High Court set aside and
  conviction of all the three accused as recorded by Special
  Court upheld -However, keeping in view the facts and
  circumstances of the case, and the fact that the accused have
  undergone agony of the proceedings for nearly two decades,
B accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year
  with fine of Rs. 10, 0001- each - Kera/a State Electricity Board
  Tender Regulations -Regulation 25 (C).

          ADMINSTRA TION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE :

C      Disposal of cases relating to corruption by public servants
  -Held: When a matter of this nature is entrusted to a Special
  Court or a regular court, such trials should be given priority
  and concluded within a reasonable time -High Courts are
  expected to monitor and even call for quarterly report from
D courts concerned for speedy disposal -Inasmuch as accused
  is entitled to speedy justice, it is the duty of all in charge of
  dispensation of justice to see that the issue reaches its end
  as early ~s possible -Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 227.

E      The respondents (A-1, A-3 and A-6) along with others
  were prosecuted for various offences punishable under
  the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, in
  connection with awarding of a contract relating to the
  works of power tunnel and surge shaft after completion
  of the Dam under the ldamalayar Hydro Electric Power
F Project in the State of Kerala (ldamalayar contract). The
  prosecution case was that as per decision of the Kerala
  State Electricity Board (the Board), the contract relating
  to power tunnel was awarded on 19.11.1982 to A-4 at
  188% above the Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) and
G the work relating to surge shaft and allied works at 162%
  above the estimated amount with many special
  conditions involving heavy financial implications at the
  expense of the Board; that A-1 was the Minister for
  Electricity in the State Government at the relevant time
H and at his instance, the Board awarded the contract to
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 765
                 & ORS.
A-4. A-3 was thf. Member in the Consultative Committee         A
of the Board and A-6 was the Member of the Board at the
relevant time. The work carried out by the contractor
revealed several leaks and cracks and other defects,
were revealed in the work carried out by the contractor
in the tunnel, which attracted public attraction and the       B
matter was also discussed in the State Legislative
Assembly and, ultimately, led to prosecution of several
persons including the appellants. During the trial A-4 and
A-7 died, A-22 became insane and some accused were
discharged. The trial court convicted A-1, A-3 and A-6 of      c
offences punishable u/ss 120-B and 409 IPC and ss. 5(1)
(c) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with
s~ 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to 5 years RI
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. All other accused
were acquitted. All the three convicts filed appeals before    0
the High Court, which acquitted them of all the charges.
Aggrieved, the appellant, who was the leader of the
Opposition in the State Assembly at the relevant time, filed
the appeal.
     It was contended for the appellant that (i) there was     E
enough material to show that A-1 was very much
interested in favour of A-3 and with the connivance/
assistance of the Board officials, more particularly,
through A-6, the Member of the Board, made the .Board
to accept the tender offered by A-4 at exorbitant rates with   F
various special conditions contrary to the norms and
circulars/procedures of the Board, and there was
inordinate delay in awarding the contract; and (ii) that the
criminal breach of trust was committed by the accused:
(a) by awarding both the works of ldamalayar contract at       G
very high and exorbitant rates with special conditions
having heavy financial implic'ations; (b) by reducing the
retention and security amount; (c) by allowing the
contractor to return only fifty per cent of the empty
                                                               H
    766      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A cement bags; and (d) by accepting the special condition
  for the sale of T & P items (tools & plants) which could
  not be sold as per the general conditions of the contract.

          The respondents' case, on the other hand, was that:
8   (i) inasmuch as the High Court acquitted all the accused
    in respect of all the charges on appreciation of oral and
    documentary evidence, interference by Supreme Court
    was very limited; in the absence of perversity in such
    conclusion, normally, the Court would not interfere with
C   the order of acquittal; (ii) that the outcome of the contract
    in favour of A-4 was based on a "collective decision" by
    the Board and there was no external pressure from
    anyone including A-1; (iii) that there was no allegation
    that by awarding contract in favour of A-4, A-1 was
    monetarily benefited; and (iv) that in any event, inasmuch
D   as the State did not challenge the order of acquittal, the
    appellant, who was neither a complainant nor a party to
    any of the proceedings had no locus to pursue the
    appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was not maintainable
    and on this ground was liable to be dismissed without
E   going into the merits of the case.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD:

F 1. Interference by Supreme Court in an order of acquittal

      It is settled principle that an appellate court has full
  power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
  evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
G The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
  restriction or condition on exercise of such power and
  an appellate court is free to arrive at such conclusion,
  both on questions of fact and of law. An appellate court,
  however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there
H is double presumption in favour of the accused. The
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 767
                   & ORS.
 presumption of innocence is available to a person in the       A
 criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
 presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
 competent court of law. It is also settled law that if two
 reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
 evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb     B
 the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. [para
 7] [791-E-G]

 2. Statutory Provisions

      2.1. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was in force at   C
 the relevant time and the Board had been constituted in
 terms of s.5 thereof, for the management and supply of
 electricity. As per s. 78-A, the Board, in discharge of its
 functions shall be guided by such directions and
 questions of policy as may be given to it by the State         D
 Government; and except on policy matters, the State
 Government had no role in the affairs of the Board. [para
 8] [792-B-C]

 3. A-1 's interference in the affairs of the Board:
                                                                E
        3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 while he
   was holding office of the Minister for Electricity,
   Government of Kerala was interfering in the day-to~day
   a~airs of the Board and used to interfere even in··
   awarding of contracts of the Board. One of the main F
   charges levelled against A1 and others is that he, in his
, capacity, as Minister for Electricity intended to settle
   contracts of the Board in the name of his favourites or
   persons of his choice at exorbitant rates with the ulterior
   object of making illegal profit either to himself or to his G
   favourites. In order to establish its case, the prosecution
   has produced evidence through PW-64, PW-66, PW-138,
 . and PW-146, who supported the prosecution case. [para
   9] [792-E-H]
                                                                H
    768    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A      3.2. It is clear from the materials on record that the
  process of tendering of ldamalayar works was
  interrupted on several occasions mainly by the Board by
  cancelling the tenders and ordering re-tender and by
  extending the period of validity of tenders more than once.
B It was on the last date of extension of the validity of the
  tender i.e. on 30.06.1982, that A-4 appeared and submitted
  his tender with special conditions which was later
  accepted in the Board's meeting dated 19.11.1982. The
  Special Judge, placing reliance on Board's resolution
C [Ex. P550(a)], has rightly concluded that there was
  inordinate delay in awarding the work which reasoning
  was erroneously not accepted by the High Court. The
  materials placed clearly show that it was nearly three
  years to take a decision. It is also clear from the evidence
  of PWs 64, 66, 138 and 146 which clinchingly established
0
  the circumstances under which A-1 conceived the idea
  for fixing contract of the Board at exorbitant rates in order
  to derive monetary benefits. The contrary conclusion
  arrived by the High Court, is not in terms of the evidence
  led in by the prosecution. [para 14) [795-E-H]
E
  4. Whether ldamalayar contract was awarded at
  exorbitant rates causing loss to the Board:

       4.1. The basic stand of the prosecution is that A-1
F entered into criminal conspiracy to award the disputed
  contract involving heavy financial gain to A-4 and the
  conspiracy and abuse of power by certain officials
  enabled the conspirators to earn a pecuniary advantage
  of Rs.2,39,64,253/-, in addition to the financial loss caused
G to the Board. It is the specific case of the prosecution that
  the rates awarded in both the contracts are exorbitant. It
  is not in dispute that the contract was awarded at 188%
  above PAC in the case of tunnel work and 162% above
  PAC for the surge shaft work. Verification of Ext. P-52(b)
  shows that the sanctioned estimate for the tunnel work
H
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 769
                 & ORS.
was Rs.1,17,20,633.90. On the other hand, the accepted A
tender amount as per the award of contract was
Rs.2,45,80,796/- which is clear from Ext P 52. It is further
seen as per Ext P-68 agreement, the sanctioned estimate
for surge shaft was Rs. 74 lakhs and it was awarded for
Rs.1,42,94,901/- . The evidence of PW-7, the Chief B
Engineer of the Board, and PW-156, the Investigating
Officer, and the materials produced would show that the
contract was awarded to A-4 at excessive rates. [para 15-
16] [796-A-D; 797-A-D]

     4.2. The evidence of PWs-46 and 122 and the C
statement made by A-1 to both of them clearly show that
A-4 was the contractor chosen in advance by A-1 and
other accused who were also interested in him. The
evidence indicates the conspiracy to award the work to
A-4 at exorbitant rates originated even prior to the D
submission of tenders by A-4 and other tenderers. The
contrary conclusion arrived at by the High Court
justifying the award at higher rate to A-4 cannot be legally
sustained. [para-17] [798-D-E]
                                                                  E
     4.3. The Board is empowered with the authority to
award contracts and has discretion to accept tenders,
but, being an authority constituted under the Statute and
a Pubic Undertaking, it is not expected to accept tenders
at exorbitant rates with financial implications causing           F
loss to the Board. The Board is always expected to
protect its financial interests while awarding contracts.
The Board mainly relied on the labour problem that was
prevailing at the relevant time. In this regard, it is relevant
to point out that the tenders for the ldamalayar work were        G
invited in March, 1982 and four contractors submitted
tenders as indicated by Exts. P78 series dated 21.03.1982.
It is true that the tunnel workers went on strike on
20.04.1981 and the contractors submitted their tenders
when there was labour unrest. However, the reason
                                                                  H
    770     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A attributed for the delay cannot be accepted. There were
  procedural irregularities and omissions by the Board
  authorities in the manner of dealing with tenders'""
  submitted by A-4 and PW 64, which ultimately eliminated
  PW 64 from the scene, keeping A-4 as the sole tenderer,
s qualified by pre-qualification Committee of the Board;
  and hasty steps were taken by the Board in awarding
  contract in favour of A-4 in the meeting held on
  19.11.1982. All these facts lead to the conclusion that the
  award of contract in favour of A-4 was an exorbitant one. ·
c It is relevant to point out that the Special Judge, by
  adverting to Ext 550(a) expressed that the reasons stated
  by the Board in awarding contract in favour of A-4 at
  exorbitant rates are not acceptable. [para 17) [798-F-H;
  799-A-C]

D 5. No serious discussion by the Board:

          There was no serious discussion in the Board
    meeting held on 19.11.1982 and the minutes of the
    Meeting were prepared as dictated by A7, the then
E   Chairman of the Board. It is the responsibility of the
    members, more particularly, full time members of the
    Board, who were responsible for the scrutiny of the ·
    deviations and conditions suggested by the contractor,
    which involved huge financial implications, to see that all
F   transactions are beneficial to the Board and within the
    permissible limit. It is relevant to point out that the
    decision ultimately taken for awarding the contract with
    special conditions, as suggested by the contractor,
    involved huge financial implications at the risk and loss
G   of the Board. Though the High Court has concluded that
    the part-time members who were signatory to Ex550(a)
    had, subsequently, approved the minutes, the Special
    Court made a distinction between the responsibility of
    full-time members and that of part-time members in the
H   matters of awarding of contract. It is true that all the
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 771
                  & ORS.
members present subscribed their signatures in the A
minutes in awarding contract to A-4. It was highlighted
in evidence that A-8, the Financial Adviser to the Board,
in his report has stated that the rates awarded to the
contractor are very high. The then Law Secretary also
conveyed. his opinion during the meeting of the Board B
that the rates were exorbitant. These aspects were taken
note of by the Special Court while considering the
culpability of the accused. The then Deputy Secretary of
the Board (PW-140) also admitted this aspect and stated
that there was no serious discussion in the meeting held c
on 19.11.1982. He explained that Ex.550(a) minutes of the
meeting is a reproduction of the dictation given by the
Chairman of the Board (A-7). The Special Court has
 rightly concluded that there was no serious discussion
 in the Board Meeting dated 19.11.1982 when the question 0
of award of contract was taken up and the minutes of the
 meeting were prepared as dictated by A-7, the then
Chairman of the Board. [para 18] (799-E-H~ 800-A-G]
 6. Award of contract to A-4:
                                                            E
       6.1. Pursuant to the decision that Full Board meeting
  should be held on 19.11.1982 to decide the question of
  award of ldamalayar contract, PW-7 was directed to issue
  notice to all the tenderers. The materials relied on by the
  prosecution show that on 18.11.1982, though notices F
  were issued to the contractors, only A-4 was present on
  19.11.1982. Without verifying the fact that whether all the
  other tenderers were ready, a decision was taken on
. 19.11.1982 itself by accepting the offer of A-4 with special
  conditions. The Board being a statutory authority, ought G
  to have waited for a reply from the other tenderers to
  ascertain whether they actually received notices and
  reason for their inability to attend. It was demonstrated
  that it was a pre-planned attempt to award the work to A-
  4 alone and the notices issued to other tenderers. were H
    772    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 2 S.C.R.

A in the form of an ultimatum. It was also pointed out that
  for the negotiation on 04.11.1982, i.e. prior to 19.11.1982,
  held by PW-7, with the tenderers, in the office of the
  Board only A-4 and P.W.4 were present. The pre-
  qualification Committee, headed by A-7, gave chances to
B A-4 to correct the errors and mistakes in the tender form
  submitted by him for the impugned works, on the other
  hand, such concession was not afforded to the other
  tenderers. [para 20] [802-F-H; 803-A-C-E]

C         6.2. It is significant to note the conduct of A-1 with
     regard to settlement of labour dispute. The evidence
     shows that there was labour strike in the tunnel area
     which started in April, 1981 and continued from the time
     of inviting tenders on 05.06.1981 till the time of award of
     contract. It was highlighted that there was no effort on the
D part of A-1 to settle the labour dispute before tendering
     process was initiated. The labourers submitted the
     Memorandum to A-1 on several occasions requesting for
     settlement of labour problems. It was not settled and the
     matter was kept alive till the tender was fixed in the name
E of A-4 on 19.11.1982. It was only after the award of the
     contract, that A-1 took initiative to settle the labour
     dispute, more particularly, when he came to know that A-
     1 cannot enter the site because of the obstruction of the
     workers to begin the contract work. It is relevant to point
F "- out that PW-7 informed A-1 and A-6 more than once that
     in case the labour dispute could be settled in advance,
     the contract could be awarded at a reasonable rate. The
     evidence of PW-7 clearly shows that his request was not
     accepted by A-1 and A-6. [para 21] [804-C-F]
G       6.3. The evidence shows that the rate quoted by PW-
    4 by his evidence in court, was 135% above PAC, which
    was less than 188% above PAC, quoted by A-4 and
    approved by the Board. The High Court fai!ed to take
    note of the importance of evidence of PW-4 and justified
H
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILL.Al 773 .
                  & ORS.
the action of the Board in not pursuing the tender A
submitted by PW-4 with a lesser rate on the ground that
his tender was liable to be rejected since he wanted an
arbitration clause in the agreement. Further, though PW-
4 has quoted lesser rate than A-1, in his evidence, he has
highlighted that he was not given an opportunity to B
consider the reasonableness of the rate quoted by him
i.e. 135% above PAC. The High Court has not only
ignored his assertion but found that the rate quoted by
him for the surge shaft work is not a lesser rate when
compared to one quoted by A-4 i.e., 188% above PAC. c
Though the Special Court has correctly found that PW-4
quoted less than the rate quoted byA-4, the High Court,
on erroneous assumption found fault with the finding of
the Special Court which correctly appreciated the
prosecution case. [para 22] [804-G; 805-A-B] .             D·
7.Acceptance of Special Conditions & Concessions:
      With regard to the case of the prosecution that
  certain Special Conditions were accepted by the Board
  (Ex. P588) involving huge financial commitments                  E
  favourable to the accused-contractor causing loss to the
  Board, it is relevant to mention that one of the special
  conditions, is condition No. 4 relating to tools and plants
  sold to the contractor in violation of the General
· Conditions of the contract, which provide that the Board
  is bound to make available to the contractors only such
                                                                   F
  tools and plants as are listed in the Schedule attached
  thereto, that too subject to availability. Such items of tools
  and plants which are listed in Ext. P52 agreement marked
  as Ext. P52(d) show 8 items of tools and plants which
  can only be hired out to the contractors if requested on         G
  the specified rates. In Ext. P58, deviations and conditions
  submitted by the contractor as Item No 4, stated that such
  tools and plants listed in Ext. P52(d) shall be sold to him
  on outright sale at book value deducting depreciation
  and the cost may be recovered on pro rata basis from his         H
    774     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A bills. The full Board, in its decision dated 19.11.1982,
  accepted the special condition of the contractor to sell
  those items of tools and plants which includes very
  costly foreign imported materials. The official examined
  on the side of the prosecution pointed out that there is
B no provision in the general conditions of the contract
  enabling the Board to effect sale of those tools and plants
  to the contractor. These important aspects have been
  duly considered by the Special Court but, have been
  overlooked by the High Court while upsetting the
c decision of the Special Court. As correctly found by the
  Special Court, special condition No.4 relating to sale of
  tools and plants is a favour done by the Board to the
  contractor for obtaining financial gains at the risk of
  Board's loss. [para 23 and 26] [805-D-H; 806-A-B; 808-E]
D 8. Return of empty cement bags by the Contractor:
         8.1. Another special condition sanctioned by the
    Board in favour of the contractor A-4 relates to the return
    of empty cement bags. This special condition provided
E   that the contractor shall return only 50% of empty cement
    bags in good condition. According to the Auditor,
    because of the special condition, the Board had
    sustained a loss of Rs.1,08,879.75. The Special Court has
    substantiated its finding on the point based on evidence
F   furnished by the auditors. However, the High Court
    relying on Ext D-28 which provided for recovery of
    balance 50% of empty cement bags not returned or
    returned in damaged condition and recovery will be
    effected as stipulated in the tender condition, erroneously
    concluded that no loss could be sustained to the Board.
G   The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is contrary
    to the special condition No.10 regarding the return of
    empty cement bags, according to which the Board is not
    entitled to recover the value of balance 50% of
    unreturned cement bags. [para 25-26] [807-F-G; 808-F-H;
H   809-A]
 . V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 775
                    & ORS.
 9. Fixation of security and retention:                            A
      Yet another special condition involving financial
 implications sanctioned to the Contractor is with regard
 to the fixation of security and retention amount. In the
 case on hand, keeping in view the PAC contract works,
                                                                   8
 the security amount and retention amount due from the
 contractor would c·ome to Rs.12 lakhs. However, the
 retention amount and the security both were restricted to
 Rs. 5 Lakhs and Rs. 1 Lakh for both the works, which is
 a benefit shown to the Contractor. A perusal of Kerala
 State Electricity Board Tender Regulations show that the          C
 reduction of security deposit is permissible only in the
 case of established firm/Company and that the security
 deposit of a new contractor shall not be reduced. The
 course adopted by the Board is contrary to the condition
 contained in Regulation No.25(c) of the Board's                   D
 Regulations. [para 27] [809-C-H; 810-A-B-F]

 10. Criminal Conspiracy

        10.1. On this aspect, the Special Court has analyzed       E
   the evidence of witnesses and considered the
 · documents produced and marked by the prosecution
/ and has rightly concluded that there is sufficient evidence
   that a criminal conspiracy was hatched out at the
   instance of A-1, the then Minister for Electricity and A-3,
   who was a close associate and political ally of A-1. This       F
   was strengthened by-the evidence of PW-21,the Assistant
   Engineer, Quality Control, ldamalayar project and other
   witnesses. Nobody has challenged the relationship
   between A-1 and A-3 .. lt is the case of the prosecution that
   a conspiracy was hatched out at the instance of A1 and          G
   others with the illegal object of getting the ldamalayar
   project fixed on one among themselves at exorbitant
   rates and make illegal profits. It is also the definite case
   of the prosecution that though the work was awarded in
   the name of A-4, it was actually executed by A-3 and            H
    776     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A another accused A-22(deceased). It has come in evidence
  that the amount of work was invested and payments were
  made by A-22 and A-3. As rightly observed by the Special
  Court, the relationship between A-1 and A-3 is a relevant
  factor in arriving at the circumstances leading to the
B formation of the conspiracy. The evidence led in normally
  show that A-3 was an intimate friend of A-1 and very
  closely moving with him during the relevant period. This
  has been established by the evidence of PW-3, who was
  a watchman of the Inspection Bungalow at ldamalayar,
c PWs-6, 7 and 8 who were Engineers at the relevant ~ime
  at ldamalayar worksite and supervising execution of the
  works, PW-24, the workers ( PWs 25 and 26), and PW-19,
  the receptionist of a Tourist home, where A-3 was
  occupying a room on rent on or about the time of
  finalization of the contract in favour of A-4. The Special
D Court noted the significance of his stay during the above
  period at Thiruvananthapuram. Under s. 16 of the
  Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Constituting Authority
  Is the State Government. The evidence led in by the
E prosecution shows that A-1 took initiative to include the
  name of A-3 in the list of nominees for constituting the
  Consultative Council. The evidence of PWs 18, 27 and 51
  and Ext.180(c) established the case of the prosecution.
  The evidence further shows that the mandatory
  requirements contemplated u/s 16 of the Act regarding
F the constitution of Consultative Council was not adhered
  to by A-1 who wanted to include A-3 in the panel
  inasmuch as usually the representatives of State Level
  Organisers representing various interests alone were
  nominated after consultation by the Government with
G such bodies, but A-3 was not representing any such
  State Level Organisation. This is evident from the
  evidence of PWs 31 and 16. [paras 28, 29 and 34] [811-B·
  F; 812-D·F-H; 813-A; 815-D-F]
H         10.2. The prosecution has established the
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 777
                  & ORS.
 relationship of A1 and A-4 even before awarding of              A
 contract. Even prior to awarding of the contract to A-4,
 A-1 had chosen A-4 as prospective contractor for
 execution of the work which fact is spoken to by PW-122
 and also by PW-46. Their evidence shows that on
 29.06.1981 when they met A-1 requesting for the award           B
 of the tunnel driving work to the workers at ldamalayar,
 A-1 told them that the execution of the ldamalayar work
 was proposed to be given to A-4. {para 30] {813-C-D]

      10.3. The role played by A-3 in fixing the contract to C
 A-4 is also relevant to infer the formation of agreement
 between himself and A-1. In addition to the same, the
 prosecution has adduced acceptable evidence that a
 company by name Hydro Power Construction Company
 was registered as a partnership firm with A-4 as Managing
 Partner and A3 and A-22 (deceased) as Working Partners. D
 Further, close relatives of A-4, A3 and A-22 were parties
 to the partnership deed. The object of the partnership was
 to execute the ldamalayar tunnel work and also the surge
 shaft work in the name of the firm which was an
 assessee under the income tax Act as is evident from Ex. E
 P245, the income-tax assessment of the firm in the year
 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the evidence of PW-123, an
 Income-tax practitioner. In addition to the same, when A-
 3 was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted that he
 invested good amount for the work and visited the site F
 to watch the progress of the work. The fact that A-1, while
 as a Minister for Electricity, interfered with the award of
 the contracts of the Board were spoken to by PW-64, PW-
 66, PW-138 and PW-146. It is also clear that A-1 was
 awaiting for a probable contractor of his choice to G
 undertake the ldamalayar works at exorbitant rates. [para
 31] [813-F-H; 814-A-C]
      10.4. Further, there was labour agitation prevailing at
· tdamalayar work site. It is in evidence that after execution
                                                                 H
   778      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 2 S.C.R.

A of the agreement of the ldamalayar work by A-4, A-1
  interfered and settled the labour dispute by awarding a
  compensation of Rs. 11 lakhs to the striking workers and
  the worksite was made free of any labour unrest. It is the
  prosecution case that this was done to help the
B contractor, a party to the conspiracy for execution of the
  work and to make illegal profit therefrom. The evidence
  of PW-7, Chief Engineer and other witnesses stated that
  the awarding of ldamalayar work at exorbitant rates could
  have been avoided in case the labour issue was settled
c earlier. The prosecution has also highlighted labour
  unrest at ldamalayar which was kept pending at the
  instance of A-1 and other interested parties so as to make
  it appear that no contractor will come forward to
  undertake the contract, so much so that there is
  possibility of choosing a contractor of their choice for the
0
  execution of the work at exorbitant rates. (para 32] (814·
  D-H; 815-A]
      10.5. The prosecution has also highlighted that to
  achieve the illegal object of finding the contract in the
E name of A-4 at exorbitant rates, the pre-qualification
  system was introduced by the Board by order Ext. P576
  dated 24.09.1981. This was after tendering process had
  started for the ldamalayar work. PW-138, explained
  before the court that pre-qualification bid system was
F misused by the Board to safeguard vested interest by
  choosing contractors of their choice. [para 33] [815-B]
      10.6. The Special Court, after analysing the evidence
  in detail found that A-3 is the man behind the manuring
  for getting the contract awarded to A-4, who, however,
G was only a benamidar and A-3 and A-22 were the
  beneficiaries though the work was awarded in the name
  of A-4. The role played by A-6 in the matter of hatching
  out the conspiracy and the fulfillment of the unlawful
  object is proved by evidence, particularly, from the
H evidence of PW-7. (para 34] (816-C-D]
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 779
                  & ORS.
      10.7. From the materials on record, it is clear that a        A
 criminal conspiracy among A-1, A-3 and A-6 can be
 inferred. A-1, as Minister for Electricity is all in all dealing
 with the efforts of the Board including the awarding or
 cancellation of the contracts. The officers and the Board
 members were under his pressure and fear which is                  B
 clearly seen from the statements of prosecution
 witnesses, namely, PWs 8, 36, 60, 62, 138, 140, 64, 66 etc.
 From the materials on record, as rightly concluded by the
 Special Court, it leads to a conclusion that several out of
 way methods were adopted by the Board at the instance              c
 of.A-1 for achieving the object of conspiracy. (para 34]
 (816-E-F; 817-A]
       10.8. The High Court failed to consider various
  instances and materials placed by the prosecution in
, respect of charge relating to conspiracy. Before this             D
  Court it was demonstrated that several material aspects
  have not been considered by the High Court. PW-7,
  former Chief Engineer, a most reliable witness was
  examined in the presence of A-3 on 04.11.1982 in the
  Board's office. There is no necessity to corroborate or           E
  further material in addition to the oral evidence of PW-7.
  As rightly analysed and concluded by the Special Court,
  there is no infirmity in the evidence of PW-7 merely
  because there is no documentary evidence in respect of
  the presence of A-3 at the Board's meeting, the evidence          F.
  of PW-7 cannot be ignored. [para 35] (817-D; 818-B-C]
      10.9. The High Court very much accepted the stand
 of the accused that it was a collective decision of the
 Board for awarding contract in favour of A-4 at exQrbitant
 rates, though the reasons relied on by the Board expose            G
 the omission and negligence on its part in fixing the
 contract with other contractors, namely, PW-146, P.W. 64
 or PW-4, who quoted lower rates then A-4. Even before
 this Court it was reiterated that it was a collective decision
 of the members of the Board to award the contract in               H.
     780      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 2 S.C.R.

· A favour of A-4, but it has been established, as has been
     held by the Special Court, that the contract was awarded
     at exorbitant rates, with special conditions. In the instant
     case, all the ingredients of criminal conspiracy are
     satisfied for convicting A-1, A-3 and A-6 for the offence
 · B charged against them. [para 36] [Q18-D·G]
     11. Special mention abouf PW-7, retired Chief Engineer
     of the Board & PW-46:
           11.1. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence
 c of PW 7, a retired Chief Engineer of the Board. By his rich
    experience and having worked as a Chief Engineer at the
    relevant time, namely, when ldamalayar project was
    commissioned, he furnished all the details with reference
    to various documents such as his report, opinion,
  0 minutes of the meeting of the Board with reference to
    ldamalayar project He retired from service on March 1985,
    and was first examined on the side of the prosecution on
    28.03.1996 and at that time he was 66 years old. He was
    called upon to give evidence only in March 1996 nearly
. E after 15 years of the commissioning of the ldamalayar
    project. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to
    reject his entire evidence for alleged inconsistencies as
    claimed by the respondents/accused. In his evidence, he
    has mentioned that on the submission of tender by A-4,
    it was noted that he quoted 189% above PAC. It is also
  F seen from the evidence of PW-7 that after noting that the
    rate quoted by A-4 is higher rate, he forwarded the said
    information for remarks of FA and CAO. He also asserted
    that A-6 told him that A-1, the Minister, was very much
    particular to award both the works to A-4. He inspected
  G the site on 23.09.1983 and due to slow progress in the
    works, he castigated A-22, who conducted the works.
    After few days, A-3 and A-22 came to his house and
    warned him and then on 13.10.1983, he was transferred
    and appointed as an Advisor of Electricity Board In
  H respect of Hydroelectric Projects, though such a Post
V.S. ACHUTHAl'JANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 781
                   & ORS.
was not there. [para 37 and 38] [819-A-C; G-H; 820-A-B;        A
E-F; 822-B-C-E]
     11.2. As regards the decision of the Board and the
role of PW-7, he has stated that the Chief Engineer has
no right to question the Board's decision. However, he
                                                               8
clarified that when he was asked to give his opinion or
report, he was bound by the said direction. Though,
several reports and minutes of the Board meeting were
pressed into service by the respondents/accused in
order to strengthen their case that all important decisions
accepting the contract in favour of A-4 including several      C
special conditions etc., were taken by the Board on the
notes/reports of PW-7, it is clear that due to the pressure
of A-6, the then Member of the Board, who was close to
A-1, as well as the desire of A-1 in awarding the contract
in favour of A-4 with higher rates, PW-7 had no other          D
option except to execute the directions of A-6 and A-1.
The analysis of the evidence of PW-7 coupled with the
other prosecution witnesses and other notes and report
prepared for the Board clearly indicate that though he
reminded that certain things were not permissible,             E
because of the fact that the beneficiaries of the contract
are known to A-1 and A-6, he had no other option except
to prepare notes in such a way and, ultimately, the Board
accepted the same. [paras 37, 38, 39 and 41] [821-G-H;
822-A-G-H; 823-C-D]                                            F
     11.3. The evidence of PW-46, a member of RSP, a
political party was led by the prosecution to establish that
A-1 decided and determined to award the contract to A-
4. PW-46 stated that at the relevant time he was the
President of the workers Union. A memorandum was               G
submitted to A-1 and he was requested to give· work to
labourers at least on piece rate basis, but A-1 told them
that the contract had been given to A-4. [para-42] [823-E-
H]
                                                               H
    782     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A 12. About maintainability of the appeal by the appellant:

         In the instant case, certain special features exist.
    Though the State has not filed any appeal against the
    impugned order of acquittal by the High Court but
    supported the ultimate conviction and sentence imposed
8
    by the Special Judge and informed this Court that if
    permitted, it was ready to file an appeal with an
    application for condonation of delay. Though the Court
    is not inclined to entertain such a request at this stage,
    however, the fact remains that taking note of the
C   importance of the issue, allegations against the Minister
    and higher officials of the Board in respect of award of
    contract with the ulterior motive, the appellant
    approached this Court on earlier occasion when the
    State wanted to close the prosecution against all the
D   accused including the Minister, based on the order of the
    High Court in respect of A-5. Further when the very same
    appellant filed special leave petition before this Court and
    later leave was granted by this Court neither of these
    respondents raised any objection as to the
E   maintainability of the petition. On the other hand, a Bench
    of three Judges* accepted the appellant's claim and set
    aside the order of the High Court based on which the
    Special Judge proceeded further and, ultimately,
    convicted and sentenced A-1, A-3 and A-6. In view of
F   these factual details, the respondents-accused were not
    serious in projecting the issue relating to maintainability
    as their first objection. In view of the special
    circumstances highlighted in the case on hand, the
    instant appeal by the appellant against the order of
G   acquittal by the High Court is maintainable. [para 45] [825-
    F; 826-H; 827-A-F]
      *V.S. Achuthanandan vs. R. Ba/akrishna Pillai & Ors.,
  1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 95      =
                             (1994) 4 sec 299] - referred
H to.
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 783
                   & ORS.
    National Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi and          A
 Another 2010 11 Scale 17; and K. Anbazhagan vs.
 Superintendent of Police and Others 2003 (5) Suppl.
 SCR 610    =(2004) 3 SCC 767- relied on
      Latu Prasad Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., 2010
 (4 ) SCR 334    =(2010) 5 SCC 1 held in-applicable               B
 13. Conclusion
     13.1. The prosecution has established the following
 aspects insofar as accused A-1, A-3 and A-6 are
 concerned: (a) the contract was awarded for both the             C
 works of ldamalayar at a very high and exorbitant rate
 with special conditions having heavy financial
 implications; (b) the contractor was allowed to returh
 only fifty per cent of the empty cement bags; and (c) the
 contract was awarded by reducing the retention and               o
 security amount. [para 47] (828-D.E]
        13.2. The High Court failed to appreciate in the proper
·· perspective the materials placed by the prosecution and
   brushed aside several import<!nt items of evidence
   adduced by the prosecution. Equally, the conclusion of         E
   the High Court that the proved circumstances are not
   sufficient to hold that there was conspiracy, as alleged
   by the prosecution, cannot be accepted. On the other
   hand, the Special Court, after framing various points for
   consideration and after thorough discussion, has rightly       F
   accepted the case of the prosecution and rightly
   convicted the accused. The High Court committed a
   grave error in acquitting .the accused without adverting
   to the reliable and acceptable evidence adduced by the
   prosecution. The judgment of the High Court is set aside       G
   and the conviction of all the three accusedas recorded
   by the trial court is upheld. [para 47] (828-F-H; 829-A-B]
     13.3. Now, coming to the sentence part, it is relevant
 to note that the contract was awarded to A-4 (since
 deceased) as early as on 19.11.1982. After various               H
    784     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A agitations, discussions in the Assembly, appointment of
  a Commission by the Government and based on the
  report of the Commission, the State Government initiated
  the prosecution and the trial prolonged upto November
  19, 1999. Thereafter, the matter remained pending before
B the High Court till October 2003, when the High Court
  pronounced its order acquitting all the accused. The
  matter was then taken up to this Court by the appellant.
  The accused have undergone agony of these
  proceedings for nearly two decades, therefore, ends of
c justice would be met by awarding rigorous imprisonment
  for one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Ordered
  accord_ingly. [para 48) [829-C-E]
          14. It is pertinent to point out that in all the cases in
    which charges relating to corruption by public servants
D are involved, normally, it takes longer time to reach its
    finality. Although, the Government of India, Department
    of Law & Justice is making all efforts for expeditious
    disposal of cases of this nature by constituting Special
    Courts, however, the fact remains that it takes longer time
E to reach its destination. When a matter of this nature is
    entrusted to a Special Court or a regular court, it is but
    proper on the part of the court concerned to give priority .
    to the same and conclude the trial within a reasonable
    time. The High Court, having overall control and
F . supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
    Constitution of India is expected to monitor and even call
    for a quarterly report from the court concerned for
    speedy disposal. Inasmuch as the accused is entitled to
    speedy justice, it is the duty of all in charge of
G dispensation of justice to see that the issue reaches its
    end as early as possible. [para 49) [829-G; 830-C-E]
                        Case Law Reference:
     1994 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 95referred to              para 2
H
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 785
                 & ORS.
  2010 11 Scale 17            relied on           para 43       A
  2010 (4 ) SCR 334           held inapplicable para 46
  2003 (5 ) Suppl. SCR 610 relied on              para 46
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSDICTION: Criminal Appeal             B
No. 350 of 2006.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2003 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal-Nos. 823, 824 of
1999 and 822 of 1999 (B}.
                                                                c
     Shanti Bhushan, A. Sharan, U.U. Lalit, S. Gopakumaran
Nair, R.S. Sodhi, Malini Poduval, Rovin V.S., Deepak Prakash,
Biju P. Raman, Usha Nandini, Babita Sant, Vishnu B. Saharya,
Geroge Mathew, Saharya & Co., E.M.S. Anam, Fazlin Anam,
James Koshy, Vinod. Kumar, T.G. Narayan Nair, K.N.              o
Mahusoodhanan, P.V. Dinesh, Jojo Jose, Sindhu T.P., P.V.
Vinod for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal, by ,E
special leave, is to the legality of.the order dated 31.10.2003
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam allowing
Criminal Appeal Nos. 822, 823 & 824 of 1999 filed by the
accused setting aside the order dated 10.11.1999 passed by
the Special Judge ldamalayar Investigations, Ernakulam in C.C. F
No. 1 of 1991 convicting all the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal
Code {in short 'IPC'} and Sections 5(1}(c} and 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) (hereinafter
referred to as 'the P.C. Act'} and sentencing them to undergo G
rigorous imprisonment.
    2. Brief Facts:-
    ·(a} ldamalayar Hydro Electric Power Project, a multi-
purpose power project in Kerala was conceived and completed     H
    786     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A   in the year 1985. The project report was approved by the
    Central Water and Power Commission in 1973.

       (b) After the completion of the Dam, the remaining
  construction work relating to the power tunnel and surge shaft,
  which are integral part of the water conductor system of the
8
  project, was awarded on contract basis to one KP. Poulose
  (A4), as per the decision of the Kerala State Electricity Board
  (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), on 19.11.1982. The
  work relating to power tunnel was awarded at 188% above the
  Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) and the work relating to
C surge shaft and allied works at 162% above the estimated
  amount with many special conditions, as requested by the
  contractor, involving heavy financial implications/advantages to
  him at the experise of the Board. Further, there was inordinate
  delay in completion of the work.
D
        (c) During the trial run, on 15.07.1985, several leaks and
  cracks were noticed in the tunnel lining which was a matter of
  great public concern and caused considerable anxiety and fear
  among the public and State as well. Discussions and debates
E were held in this regard in the State Legislative Assembly.
  There was a public outcry for a judicial probe in this matter.
  Extensive rectification work to remedy the defects in the tunnel
  lining and surge shaft was undertaken at a considerable cost
  which was to the tune of Rs. 1.75 crore.
F      (d) On 02.08.1985, the Public Undertaking Committee of
  the State Legislature inspected the site and submitted its report
  recommending a judicial probe. The State Government
  appointed a sitting Judge of the Kerala High Court as
  Commissioner of Inquiry to conduct the probe. The Commission
G recorded its enquiry, collected considerable evidence and
  submitted its report in June, 1988. The Commission came to
  the conclusion that materials placed before it prima facie
  disclosed commission of offences punishable under l.P.C. and
  P.C Act against persons responsible for the same and
H recommended for investigation into these offences. The State
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 787
          & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Government accepted the recommendations and constituted a           A
special team, headed by Superintendent of Police for
Investigation. The report of the special squad was filed in the
Court of Special Judge on 14.12.1990 in Crime No. C.C. No.
1 of 1991.
                                                                    B
      (e) During pendency of the case, an application for
withdrawal of the prosecution against accused No. 5 - G.
Gopalakrishna Pillai, who was the Secretary to the Kerala
Government, Irrigation and Power Department was made by
the then Special Public Prosecutor on 24.08.1992 under              C
Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'Cr.P.C.') on the ground of absence of any material to sustain
a successful prosecution of offences alleged against him. At
this stage, the appellant herein - V.S. Achuthanandan, the then
Opposition leader in the Assembly, in public interest, filed
statement of objections against the move for withdrawal of the      D
case against G. Gopalakrishna Pillai (A5). After full fledged
enquiry, the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor
was dismissed by the Special Judge on 16.10.1992.

     (f) On 03.02.1993, Criminal Revision Petition No. 762 of       E
1992, filed by the State against the order of Special Judge was
allowed by the High Court. On the strength of the observations
made in the order of the Kerala High Court, the State
Government took the decision to withdraw the criminal case
against all other accused.                                          F

     (g) The appellant challenged the above order of the High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1994 before this Court
which set aside the order of the High Court and restored the
order of the Special Judge declining consent for withdrawal
[vide V.S. Achuthanandan vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai & Ors.,          G
(1994) 4 SCC 299]. Subsequently, the matter was further
proceeded in the Court of Special Judge.

    (h) During trial, Accused No. 22, Paul Mundakkal became
insane and the case against l\im
                             · ..::
                                    was allowed to split, Accused   H
    788     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A   No.4 - K.P. Poulose, Contractor, died, Accused nos. 11 and
    14 to 21 were discharged by the Court of Special Judge in the
    final report holding that there was no prima facie case made
    against them.

       (i) On 14.12.1995, charges were framed against other
8
  accused for various offences under Sections 120-8, 409, 430
  and 201 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and
  (d) of the P.C. Act. This order of the Special Judge was
  confirmed by the High Court, but found that the charge under
  the P.C. Act is not sustainable against A5 and AS for want of
C proper sanction as per the orders passed in Criminal Revision
  Petitions filed by the accused in the High Court. Charge was
  amended accordingly and the accused were rearranged as A 1
  to A11. In the meantime, A7 died.

D      (j) The Special Court, after analyzing the oral and
  documentary evidence on record, vide its judgment and order
  dated 10.11.1999 found R. 8alakrishna Pillai (A1), P.K. Sajeev
  (A3) and Ramabhadran Nair (A6) guilty of the offences
  punishable under Section 120-8 and 409 IPC and Sections
E 5(1)(c) and 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120-8 of IPC.
  They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
  period of five years for the offence punishable under Section
  120-8 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
  period of four years each under Section 409 IPC and Section
F 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120-8 IPC and to pay a
  fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple
  imprisonment for one year each. However, A 1, A3 and A6 were
  acqultted of the charges under Sections 161, 201 and 430 IPC
  read with Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. It was also directed
  that the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused Nos.
G 2,4,5,8,9, 10 and 11 were found not guilty of the offences and
  they were acquitted of all the offences with which they were
  charged.

      (k) Aggrieved by the order of conviction and centence, all
H the three accused i.e. (A 1), (A3) and: _(A6) filed separate
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 789
           & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
appeals before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. By the        A
common impugned judgment dated 31.10.2003, the High Court
set aside the conviction and sentence of all the three accused
and acquitted them from all the charges levelled against them.

    (I) Questioning the order of acquittal, the appellant - V.S.    B
Achuthanandan, filed special leave petition against the common
impugneif]udgment and, this Court, by order dated
27.03.2006, granted leave to appeal.

       3. Heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for
  the appellant, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for         C
  R.Balakrishna Pillai (A 1), Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned
· senior counsel for P.K. Sajeev (A3), Mr. S. Gopakumaran Nair,
  learned senior counsel for Ramabhadran Nair (A6) and Mr. R.S.
  Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the State of Kerala.
                                                                    D
 Submissions:
      4. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the
 appellant after taking us through the entire materials relied on
 by the prosecution,· stand taken by the defence, elaborate
 reasonings of the trial Court in convicting the accused and the    E
 reasonings of the High Court in acquitting them, raised the
 following submissions:-

      (i) There was enough material to show that (A 1) was very
 much interested in favour of (A3) and with the connivance/. F
 assistance of the Board officials, more particularly through (A6)
 Member of the Board, made the Board to accept the tender ·
 offered by K.P. Poulose (A4) at an exorbitant rate with various
 special conditions.
     (ii) The criminal breach of trust has been committed by the    G
 accused in the following ways:-
       (a)   By awarding both the works of ldamalayar at a very
             high and exorbitant rate with special conditions
             having heavy financial implications.                   H
     790           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


·A          (b)     By reducing the retention and security amount.

            (c)     By allowing the contractor to return only fifty per cent
                    of the empty cement bags .

           . {d)    By accepting the special condition for the sale of T
B                   & P items (tools & plants) which could not be sold
                    as per the general conditions of the contract

       (iii) Contrary to the norms and circulars/procedures of the
  Board, in order to favour K.P. Poulose (A4), who was a friend
C of (A1), the Board has accepted all the conditions just to favour
  (A 1) and (A3).

          5. Mr. U. U. Lalit, Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr. S.
     Gopakumaran Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for (A1),
     (A3) and (A6) respectively supporting the ultimate decision of
·o   the High Court submitted that:

          (i) The outcome of the contract in favour of K.P. Poulose
     (A4) was based on a "collective decision" by the Board and
     there was no external pressure from anyone including (A1).
 E
         (ii) All the decisions taken were in terms of rules/norms
     applicable to the contract including accepting special
     conditions.

        (iii) Mere acceptance of higher rate would not amount to
 F criminality.

         (iv) There is no allegation that by awarding contract in
     favour of K.P. Poulose (A4), (A1) was monetarily benefited.

 G       (v) No material to show that there is any wrongful loss to
     the Board.

        (vi) Inasmuch as the High Court acquitted all the accused
   in respect of all the charges on appreciation of oral and
   documentary evidence, interference by this Court is very limited.
 H In the absence of perversity in such conclusion, normally, this
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 791
           & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal.                 A
        (vii) In any event, inasmuch as the State has not challenged
  the order of acquittal, the present appellant being neither a
. complainant or heir nor a party to any of the proceedings is not
  entitled to pursue the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
                                                                       8
  is not maintainable and on this ground liable to be dismissed
  without going into the merits of the claim.

      6. We have carefully analysed the materials placed by the
prosecution, the defence, the decision and reasonings of the
trial Court and High Court and considered the rival contentions.       C

 Interference by this Court in an order of acquittal

      7. Learned senior counsel for the respondents by drawing
our attention to the reasoning of the High Court and in respect
of all the charges leveled against acquitting them submitted that D
in the absence of perversity in the said decision, interference
by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction is not
warranted. It is settled principle that an Appellate Court has full
power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. The Code of E
Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C') puts no limitation,
restrictioll' or condition on exercise of such power and an
Appellate Court is free to arrive at such conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law. An Appellate Court, however, must
bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double F
presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of
innocence is available to a person and in the criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
It is also settled law that if two reasonable conclusions are G
possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us discuss
the charges leveled, materials placed by the prosecution in
support of those charges, reasoning of the Special Court H
   792      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A convicting the accused and impugned order of the High Court
  acquitting all the three accused in respect of the said charges.

   Statutory Provisions

        8. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') was
B in force at the relevant time. Section 5 of the Act mandates each
  State to constitute State Electricity Board for the management
  and supply of electricity. As per Section 78A, which was
  inserted by Act 101 of 1956 and came into force w.e.f.
  30.12.1956, in discharge of its functions, the Board shall be
C guided by such directions and questions of policy as may be
  given to it by the State Government. As rightly pointed out by
  Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellant
  that except on policy matters, the State Government has no role
  in the affairs of the Board. In view of the charges levelled against
O A1 who was the Minister for Electricity, Government of Kerala,
  we adverted to these statutory provisions.
   A1's interference in the affairs of the Board:
                                        '
       9. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 while he was
E holding office of the Minister for Electricity, Government of
  Kerala was interfering in the day-to-day affairs of the Board
  including transfers, promotions, appointment of employees,
  granting electric connection to consumers by giving directions
  to the Board officers. It is also alleged that A1 used to interfere
F even in awarding of contracts of the Board during his period
  as Minister for Electricity. One of the main charges leveled
  against A1 and others is that he, in his capacity, as Minister
  for Electricity intended to settle contracts of the Board in the
  name of his favourites or persons of his choice at exorbitant
G rates with the ulterior object of making illegal profit either to
  himself or to his favourites. With regard to the above claim, the
  prosecution has produced evidence through Kuriakose
  Chennakkadan (PW-64), Jagannad Prasad (PW-66),
  Managing Partner, C.S. Company, Kottayam, Alexander
H Vellappally (PW-138), Managing Director, Asian Tech and
   V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 793
             & ORS. [P. SATHA~_IVAM, J.]
   Kamalasanan (PW-146), Managing Director of M/s We-Build. A
   According to Kamalasanan (PW-146), though he was one of
   the tenderers for surge shaft work, quoted acceptable rates,
   could not get the contract work because of the interference of
   A1. He deposed that, the then Chief Engineer, late Bharathan
   recommended his work for acceptance by the Board, but he . B
   was further told by Shri Bharathan that he should meet A6 and
   also to give 5% of PAC as procuring expenses and if the said
 . amount is not given, the work could not be awarded, hence he
   met A6 who told him that the rate quoted by him is very low
   and advised him to settle whether it is workable or not. He further c
   deposed that at the time when A1 was the Minister, A6 was a
, Member of the Board who was very powerful having influence
   over the Minister. According to him, the voice of A1 is reflected
   through A6 with regard to the affairs of the Board.

         10. Shri Alexander Vellappally (PW-138), Managing D
   Director of Asian Tech, in his evidence deposed that he was
   asked by A1 to quote for the Lower Periyar Project Headrace
   Power Terminal in 1980-81 when the pre-qualification system
                                                                     /
   was introduced in the Board. The tender of Shri Alexander
   Vellappally was qualified and the lowest when it was evaluated. E
   However, he was informed that further steps for negotiation and
   discussion regarding the acceptance of the tender would take
- -ptace___only with the concurrence of the Minister. He further
   deposedihat he met A1 several times and also sent letters to
   him and one letter sent by him to A1 is marked as Ext. P-544. F
   According to him, though he was the lowest tenderer, the work ·
   was not awarded to him, but g!ven to HCC. He also explained
   that pre-qualification bid system was misused by the Board ·
   officers, more particularly, in the case of Lower Periyar Works.
                                                                      G
        11. The next witness who highlighted the above issue is
   Kuriakose Chennakkadan (PW-64). According to him, the
 . Minister used to interfere in the award of contracts and when
   he met A6, he was asked to meet A1. He also deposed that
   A1 was interested for one KP.Poulose (A4). His work was            H
     794      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.


 A terminated and it was re-tendered and awarded to K.P.Poulose....,
   (A4).

        12. Jagannad Prasad (PW-66), Managing Partner of M/s
   C.S. Company deposed before the Court that while he was
   doing the contract work of a tunnel for Kakkad Hydro Electric
 8
   Project, he approached the Chief Engineer Bharathan, who told
   him that the work could be awarded only as per the directions
   of the Minister (A 1). He further deposed that he had executed
   a promissory note for Rs.5,30,000/- in favour of one Yackochan,
   who acted as a middle man for the commission payment. He
 C informed the Court that this contract was terminated by the
   Board.

          13. It was highlighted on the side of the appellant that it
    was during that period, when A1 was Minister for Electricity,
  D the tender process of ldamalayar Tunnel and its concrete lining
    and surge shaft work was started. It is relevant to note that R.
    Balakrishna Pillai (A 1) was the Minister for Electricity from
    27.01.1980 to 21.10.1981, 26.05.1982 to 05.06.1985 and
    25.05.1986 to 25.03.1987. The tender for surge shaft was
  E invited and awarded to one E.M. Varkey at 21% below
    estimated rate. The estimated rate was Rs 74 lakhs for surge
    shaft. However, the work was abandoned on 28.03.1981 due
    to labour strike. Thereafter, tenders were invited again for the
    surge shaft and four persons submitted their offers for tenders.
  F The lowest rate was quoted by Mis We-Build Pvt. Ltd. and the
    next lowest rate was by E.M. Varkey at 57% above PAC. It is
    pointed out that though the work was recommended to be
    awarded, the Board decided to re-tender the work. Accordingly,
    the tenders were invited again and E. M. Varkey alone quoted
  G for the work. His tender was not accepted since he quoted
    exorbitant rate. In the meanwhile, pre-qualification bid system
    was introduced in the Board which is evident from Ext. P-576
    dated 24.09.1981, which was made applicable to ldamalayar
    contract works. Thereafter, tender for both the works were
. H invited by Shri Bharathan, the then Chief Engineer which is
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 795
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  evident from Ext. P-46 dated 05.06.1981. However, the tender         A
· was cancelled by him which is also clear from Ext P-47 dated
  22.10.1981. The Chief Engineer extended the validity of the
  tender upto 29.04.1982 and after his demise, the then Chief
  Engineer (PW-7) extended the validity upto 30.06.1982. During
  that time, two tenders were received, one by K.P.P.oulose and        8
  other by Kuriakose Chennakkadan (PW-64), quoting special
  conditions. The cover containing the conditions and deviations
  was opened on 30.06.1982, when K.P.Poulose was present
  in the Board's Office. However, Kuriakose, the other tenderer
  was not informed and later on 09.09.1982, K.P.Poulose was            C
  pre-qualified and Kuriakose was disqualified which, according
  to him, was without notice. The contract for the balance power
  tunnel and concrete lining work of ldamalayar works was
  ultimately awarded to K.P.Poulose at 188% of the above
  estimated rate and the surge shaft work was also awarded to
  him at 162% above the estimated rate.                                0

       14. It is clear from the above materials that the process of
 tendering of ldamalayar works was interrupted on several
 occasions mainly by the Board by cancelling the tenders and
 ordering re-tender and by extending the period of validity of         E
 tenders more than once. It was on the last date of extension of
 the validity of the tender i.e. on 30.06.1982, K.P.Poulose
 appeared and submitted his tender with special conditions
 which was later accepted in the Board's meeting dated
 19.11.1982. The Special Judge, basing reliance on Board's             F
 resolution (Ex. P550(a)), has rightly concluded that there was
 inordinate delay in awarding the work which reasoning was not
 accepted by the High Court. The materials placed clearly show
 that it was nearly three years to take a decision. It is also clear
 from the evidence of PWs 64, 66, 138 and 146 which clingingly         G
 established the circumstances under which A 1 conceived the
 idea for fixing contract of the Board at exorbitant rate in order
 to derive monetary benefits. From the above, the contrary
 conclusion arrived by the High Court, according to us, is not in
 terms of the evidence led in by the prosecution.
                                                                       H
        796     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A Whether ldamalayar contract was awarded at exorbitant
  rate causing loss to the Board
              15. The basic stand of the prosecution is that A1 entered
        into criminal conspiracy to award the disputed contract involving
        heavy financial gain to K.P.Poulose (A4) and the conspiracy
8       and abuse of power by certain officials enabled the
        conspirators to earn a pecuniary advantage of Rs.2,39,64,253/
        -, in addition to the financial loss caused to the Board. It is the
        specific case of the prosecution that rate awarded in both the
        contracts is exorbitant. It is not in dispute that the contract was
C       awarded at 188% above PAC in the case of tunnel work and
        162% above PAC for the surge shaft work. Verification of Ext.
        P-52(b) shows that the sanctioned estimate for the tunnel work
        was Rs.1, 17,20,633.90. On the other hand, the accepted tender
        amount as per the award of contract was Rs.2,45,80, 796/-
    D   which is clear from Ext P 52. It is further seen as per Ext P-68
        agreement, the sanctioned estimate for surge shaft was Rs. 74
        lakhs and it was awarded for Rs.1,42,94,901/- The estimate
        for floor concreting was Rs.479.5 per M3 and the estimated rate
        for sides and arches was Rs.476.20 per M3. All the above . '
1
    E   details were highlighted in the evidence by PW-151 a
        competent Engineer. Likewise, the rate for floor concreting
        awarded to K.P.Poulose was Rs.825.47 per M3. In fact, the
        calculations made by PW-151 were not seriously disputed by
        the defence.
    F
        16. In order to appreciate the stand that the estimated rate
  and the tender quoted by K.P.Poulose was exorbitant was
  demonstrated by Mr. Shanti Bhushan by taking us through the
  estimated cost of the work awarded to skilled workers brought
  from Kulamavu and Moolamattom, who were awarded the
G tunnel driving work on piece rate basis. It is seen that the tunnel
  driving work was awarded to them at the rate of Rs. 1,250/-
  per M3 which was enhanced later, and finally, at the time, when
  the workers stopped the work, the rate was Rs. 1,900/- per M3.
  This is clear from the settlement memorandum Ext. P-212
H
   V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA Pf LLAI 797
             & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
__ signed between the labourers and the Board. This fact was         A
   highlighted in the oral evidence of PW-7, Chief Engineer of the
   Board. In his evidence, he explained that the rate awarded to
   workers will be Rs. 2,500/- per M3 including cost of materials.
   PW-156, the Investigating Officer, also gave evidence on the
   basis of records collected during his investigation. Ext.P-52     B
   agreement shows that the estimated rate for driving one meter
   tunnel was Rs. 4,090/-. Ext. P-19/Contract Certificate of the
   Power tunnel shows that the amount paid to the contractor for
   24 meters tunnel driving was Rs. 2,39,961/-. ft was highlighted
   that when the total work was done by the labourers at piece       c
   rate basis, they were given Rs. 2,500/- only per M3. The
   remuneration for 24 meters driving tunnel would come to only
   Rs.60,000/- the difference i.e. Rs.1, 79,961 (2,39,961-60,000)
   would show that the tunnel driving work was given to
   K.P.Poulose (A4) at an excessive rate.
                                                                     D
         17. It is pointed out that there is enough material to show
    that the labourers, who did the tunnel work, were prepared to
    carryout the balance work of the tunnel at the estimated rate of ·
    Rs. 4,090/-. At the relevant time, the representatives of the
    workers made a representation to the then Minister for E
    Electricity, namely, R Balakrishna Pillai (A 1) informing him that
    they are prepared to do the tunnel work and allied works at the
    estimated rate. Divakaran Kutty (PW-24), Vadayattupara
    Radhakrishnan (PW-33), Sasidharan Nair (PW-34) and
    Muraleedharan Pillai (PW-46) have given evidence that they F
    represented before the Minister as well as the officials of the
    Board and informed their preparedness to do the work at the
    estimated rate and also requested for absorption in the Board's
    service. In this regard, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior
 : counsel appearing for the appellant heavily relied on the G
    evidence of PW-46 who had gone to meet A1 along with (late)
    N Sreekantan Nair and submitted a Memorandum Ext.P-287
    dated 01.06.1982. It is relevant to note the. response of the
  . Minister (A 1) for the above said request. PW-46 stated that A 1
  · told them that there is no question of giving the WQrks to the H
    798      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A workers and he wants to give the work to K.P.Poulose. This
  instance pointed out that A 1 had personal interest in
  K.P.Poulose and had decided to entrust the contract to him,
  though at that time, the said K.P.Poulose did not submit the
  tender for the work. We have already noted that K.P. Pou!ose
B submitted his tender only on 30.06.1982 i.e. a month after the
  memorandum dated 01.06.1982 submitted by PW-46. In
  support of the same, the evidence of PW-122, T.M. Prabha,
  the then President of the Kerala Construction Labour Union that
  he met A 1 and gave representations and requested for award
c of work to the workers at estimated rate and also absorption
  of the workers in the Board's service on permanent basis is
  also relevant. Here again, it is relevant to note that PW-122 was
  also informed that there is no question of awarding work to
  workers, but the work had to be given to K.P.Poulose. The
  evidence of PWs-46 and 122 and the statement made by A 1
0
  to both of them clearly show that K.P. Poulose was the
  contractor chosen in advance by A 1 and other accused who
  were also interested in him. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shanti
  Bhushan, this evidence should be connected with the
  conspiracy to award the work to K.P.Poulose at exorbitant rate
E originated even prior to the submission of tenders to the work
  by K.P.Poulose and other tenderers. The contrary conclusion
  arrived at by the High Court justifying the award at higher rate
  to K.P.Poulose cannot be legally sustained. The Board is
  empowered with the authority to award contracts and has
F discretion to accept and being an authority constituted unqer
  the Statute and a Pubic Undertaking is not expected to accept
  tenders at exorbitant rates with financial implications causing
  loss to the Board. The Board is always expected to protect its
  financial interest while awarding contracts. The Board mainly
G relied on the labour problem that was prevailing at the relevant
  time. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that the tender for
  the ldamalayar work was invited in March, 1982 and four
  persons, namely, Kamalasanan (PW-146), Managing Director,
  We-Build, C.K. Verghese, E.M.Varkey and V.A. Thankachan
H submitted tenders vide Exts. P78 series dated 21.03.1982. It
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 799
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

is true that the tunnel workers went on strike on 20.04.1981 and A
the contractors submitted their tenders when there was labour
unrest. However, the reason attributed for the delay cannot be
accepted. As rightly pointed out, there were procedural
irregularities and omissions by the Board authorities in the
manner of dealing with tenders submitted by K.P.Poulose and B
Kuriakose, which ultimately eliminated Kuriakose from the
scene, keeping K.P.Poulose as the sole tenderer, qualified by
pre-qualification Committee of the Board and hasty steps were
taken by the Board in awarding contract in favour of
K.P.Poulose in the meeting held on 19.11.1982 lead to the            c
conclusion that the award of contract in favour of K.P.Poulose
was an exorbitant one. It is relevant to point out that the Special
Judge, by adverting to Ext 550(a) expressed that the reasons.
stated by the Board in awarding contract in favour of K.P.
Poulose at exorbitant rates are not acceptable.
                                                                    D
 No serious discussion by the Board

       18. It is pointed out and in fact taken us through evidence
 that there was no serious discussion in the Board meeting held
 on 19.11.f982 and the minutes of the Meeting were prepared          E
  as dictated by A7, the then Chairman of the Board. It is the
  responsibility of the members, more particularly, full time
 members of the Board, who were responsible for the scrutiny
 of the deviations and conditions suggested by the contractor
 which involved huge financial implications to see that all          F
 transactions are beneficial to the Board and within the
 permissible limit. Mr. Lalit and Mr. Sharan, learned senior
 counsel appearing for A 1 and A3 respectively heavily
 contended that it was a collective decision of the Board and
·there was no external pressure from anyone including A 1. It is     G
  relevant to point out that the decision ultimately taken for
  awarding the contract with special conditions, which we will
  discuss in the later paras, as suggested by the contractor,
  involved huge financial implications at the risk and loss of the
  Board. Though the High Court has concluded that the part-time      H
    800     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A members who were signatory to Ex550(a) had approved the
   minutes, subsequently, the Special Court made a distinction
   between the responsibility of full-time members and that of part-
   time members in the matters of awarding of contract. It is true
   that all the members present subscribed their signature in the
B. minutes in awarding contract to K.P.Poulose. It was highlighted
   that in evidence, A8, the Financial Adviser to the Board, in his
   report has stated that the rates awarded to the contractor are
   very high. The letters sent by A8 were marked as Exs. P-415
   and 416. It is also relevant to point out that the then Law
c  Secretary, Shri Viswanathan Nair also conveyed his opinion
   during the meeting of the Board that the rates are exorbitant.
   These aspects were taken note of by the Special Court while
   considering the culpability of the accused and the High Court
   was not serious about their views. In other words, the High
   Court has concluded that the aw2rd of contract to K.P.Poulose
0
   was a collective decision of the Members of the Board. The
   High Court also pointed out which was again highlighted by the
   learned senior counsel appearing for the accused that majority
   of the Members of the Board were highly qualified and
   responsible officers and it cannot be said that they were only
E mute witnesses to the decision of the Board. In this regard, it
   is relevant to point out that the Special Court has rightly
   concluded that there was no serious discussion in the Board
   Meeting dated 19.11.1982 when the question of award of
   contract was taken up and the minutes of the meeting were
F prepared as dictated by A7, the then Chairman of the Board.
   The then Deputy Secretary of the Board, R. Sankaran was
   examined as PW-140, also admitted this aspect and stated that
   there was no serious discussion in the meeting held on
   19.11.1982. He explained that Ex.550(a) minutes of the
G meeting is a reproduction of the dictation given by the
   Chairman of the Board (A7).

       19. The High Court has pointed out that the prosecution
  has not produced any contemporaneous agreement for proving
H the rates prevalent during the relevant period of award of the
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 801
  I       & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
contract. The High Court found that the contract was awarded A
at 188% above PAC for the tunnel work and 162% above PAC
for the surge shaft work. It was pointed out from the side of the
Board that the estimate rate was prepared taking into account
the prevalent PWD rates for similar items of work like tunnel
driving, concrete lining, earth work, cost of materials, labo'-lr B
charges, transportation charges of materials to worksite etc. It
is not in dispute that the contractor was also given opportunity
to conduct site inspection and decide other aspects connected ,
with the execution of the works for submitting his tender rate.
Though contractor can also quote special conditions involving     c
financial implications and other conditions in the contract, which
is usually settled by negotiations, but the general conditions of
contract shall not be superseded while accepting special ·
conditions· to the detriment of the Board. The Special Judge
had noted that the rate quoted by N.KXuriakose (PW-30) for 0 1
tunnel driving and surge shaft work was below 21. 75% of the
estimated rate and there was much difference in the rate quoted
by K.P.Poulose and Kuriakose. It is further seen that.the work
was awarded to Kuriakose at the rate of Rs. 1,092.3 per M3
for _sides and arches. The work awarded to Kuriakose was E
abandoned by him since the Board did not provide him with
necessary materials for proceeding with the work as per the ·
agreement. He adduced evidence for the said abandonment
and also suffered loss in that regard for which Board was
subsequently held liable and he was paid compensation as per
the Court .orders. The work was awarded to N.K. Kuriakose   .    in F
1979. The Special Court has pointed out that even though there
was an increase of 25%. of the actual rate awarded to
Kuriakose, still there was wide difference between the rates at
which the two works were awarded and on this ground also,
the Special Court held that the works for floor concreting and G
for sides and arches were awarded to K.P.Poulose at a higher
rate. However, the High Court disagreed with the conclusion·
of the Special Court. In this regard, it is useful to refer
Ext.P174(2), which is a report with regard to the rate of award
of ldamalayar contract. It was stated in the report that the H
    802     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A estimate was prepared with the scheduled rate of 1980 which
  had been enhanced by 25% on labour to obtain 1982 schedule
  and the work was awarded after the enhancement of the
  scheduled rates. It is further seen that the estimate was
  prepared with the scheduled rate of 1980 for the purpose of
B obtaining the rate of 1982 i.e. increase of 25% in the rate was
  given in 1980. The High Court has justified the increase of 25%
  by pointing out the increase mentioned in Ext.P299 which
  relates to contractor's profit of 10%, overhead charges of 10%
  and 5% for labour benefits. Though the High Court has agreed'
c with the 25% increase in the rate of 1980-82, no acceptable
  evidence was adduced over-riding the documentary evidence
  furnished by Ext.P-299 and P174(2).

    Award of contract to K.P. Poulose {A4)

D      20. It is the argument of Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior
  counsel for the appellant that the tendering process adopted
  by the Board wa~ with a view to eliminate other tenderers and
  to choose the tenderer of their choice, namely, K.P.Poulose.
  This was elaborated by pointing out that Kuriakose was
E disqualified without giving him adequate opportunity to present
  before the pre-qualification Committee and ultimately
  K.P.Poulose was declared as qualified. In the said meeting,
  only A6 and A7 were present and AS, and another member of
  the pre-qualificaton Committee was not present. Pursuant to the
F decision that Full Board meeting should be held on 19.11.1982
  to decide the question of award of ldamalayar contract, PW-7
  was directed to issue notice to all the tenderers. The materials
  relied on by the prosecution shows that on 18.11.1982, notices
  were issued to HCC, E.M.Varkey, Sunny K. Peter and
G K.P.Poulose. It is seen that only K.P.Poulose was present on
  19.11.1982. Sunny K. Peter PW-4 sent a telegram on
  19.11.1982 stating that he is not physically well. HCC conveyed
  their inability to the Board by their letter which was received in
  the office of the Chief Engineer on 22.11.1982 stating that there
  was no sufficient time given to attend the Board Meeting on
H
    V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 803
              & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
19.11.1982. Without verifying the fact that whether all the other A
tenderers were ready, a decision was taken on 19.11.1982
itself by accepting the offer of K.P.Poulose with special
conditions. As rightly pointed out, the Board being a statutory
authority, ought to have waited for a reply from the other
tenderers to ascertain whether they actually received notices B
and reason for their inability to attend. It was demonstrated that
itwas a pre-planned attempt to award the work to K.P.Poulose
alone and the notices issued to other tenderers were in the form
of an ultimatum .. lt was also pointed out that for the negotiation
on 04.11.1982, i.e. prior to 19.11.1982, held by PW-7, with the c
tenderers, in the office of the Board only K.P.Poulose and
Sunny K. Peter were present. It is further seen that E.M. Varkey
.
and HCOwere    .
                  not invited ..The fact remains that PW-7 did not
"invite EM.Varkey who quoted less rate and HCC, a reputed
 construction company for the second negotiation. Though a D
 telegram was sent on behalf of E.M.Varkey, one of the
 tenderers that since he was away and request was made to
 fix another date, it was recorded that the tenderer had already
 lost his opportunity offered. This has been demonstrated by the
 appellant that the Board was not prepared to allow the request
 of E.M. Varkey for a discussion. It is useful to refer here that E
 the pre-qualification Committee, headed by A7, gave chances
 to K.P.Poulose to correct the errors and mistakes in the tender
 form submitted by him for the impugned works, on the other
 hand, such concession was not afforded to the other tenderers,
 more particularly, E.M. Varkey. Both Sunny K. Peter and· F
 Kuriakose were examined as PWs-4 and 22 respectively. The
 evidence of Kuriakose shows that he was an experienced
 contractor, quoted 124% above PAC for the work and
 submitted his tender on 30.06.1982. According to him, he was
 not invited for any discussion. He was disqualified on G
 09.09.1982 and was not invited for being present for opening
 his deviations and conditions in the tender. In the same way,
 the evidence of Sunny K. Peter PW-4 also highlighted how he
 was discriminated, though he has quoted only 135% above
 PAC, he was not given opportunity to consider the H
     804     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 2 S.C.R.

 A reasonableness of the rates quoted by him. According to him,
    he received notice only at 2.40 p.m. on 18.11.1982 ijfld
    because of his illness, he could not attend the meeting' on
    19.11.1982. The fact remains, the Board has not considered
    his request and finalised the contract on 19.11.1982 in favour
· B of K.P.Poulose.
           21. Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for
     the appellant relates to the conduct of A1 with regard to
     settlement of labour dispute. the evidence shows that there was
     labour strike in the tunnel area which started in April, 1981 and
C    continued from the time of inviting tenders on 05.06.1981 till
     the time of award of contract. It was highlighted that there was
     no effort on the part of A1 to settle the labour dispute before
     tendering process was initiated. We have highlighted the
     Memorandum submitted by the labourers to A1 on several
 D   occasions requesting for settlement of labour problems. It was
     not settled and the matter was kept alive till the tender was fixed
     in the name of KP.Poulose on 19.11.1982. It was only after the
     award of the contract, A1 took initiative to settle the labour
     dispute, more particularly, when he came to know that
 E   K.P.Poulose cannot enter the site because of the obstruction
     of the workers to begin the contract work. It is relevant to point
     out that PW-7 informed A1 and A6 more than once that in case
     the labour dispute could be settled in advance, the contract
     could be awarded at a reasonable rate. The evidence of PW-
 F   7 clearly shows that his request was not accepted by A1 and
     A6.
       22. The evidence discussed above show that the rate
   quoted by Sunny K. Peter (PW-4) vide his evidence in Court,
   was 135% above PAC, which was less than 188% above PAC,
 G quoted by K.P. Poulose and approved by the Board. The High
   Court failed to take note of the importance of evidence of PW-
   4 and justified the action of the Board in not pursuing the tender
   submitted by Sunny K Peter (PW-4) with a lesser rate on the
   ground that his tender is liable to be rejected since he wanted _
 H an arbitration clause in the agreement. Further, though PW-4
    V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 805
              & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
   has quoted lesser rate than K.P. Poulose, in his evidence, he      A
   has highlighted that he was not given an opportunity to consider
   the reasonableness of the rate quoted by him i.e. 135% above
   PAC. The High Court has not only ignored his assertion but
   found that the rate quoted by him for the surge shaft work is
   not a lesser rate when compared to one quoted by K.P.              B
   Poulose i.e., 188% above PAC. Though the Special Court has
   correctly found that' Sunny K. Peter quoted less than the rate
   quoted by K.P. Poulose, the High Court, on erroneous
   assumption found fault with the finding of the Special Court
   which correctly appreciated prosecution case. ·                    c
   Acceptance of Special Conditions & Concessions
          23. With regard to allegation of the prosecution that certain
     Special Conditions were accepted by the Board (Ex. P588)
     involving huge financial commitments favourable to the o
     contractor causing loss to the Board, it is relevant to mention
   . that one of the special conditions, is condition No. 4 which
     relates to tools and plants sold to the contractor in violation of
     the General Conditions of the contract. These special conditions
     along with other conditions were accepted by the Board E ·
     superseding corresponding agreement provisions. Ex P52 (c)
     is the general conditions of contract and instructions to the
     contractors issued by the Board. Among various clauses,
    Clause E1-091 in Ex. P52(c) deals with tools and plants issued
     to the contractors. This clause provides that the Board is bound
- to make available to the contractors only such tools and plants
     listed in the Schedule attached thereto, that too subject· to
     availability. Such items of tools and plants which are listed in
     Ex. P52 agreement marked as Ex. P52(d) shows 8 items of
     tools and plants which can be hired out to the contractors if G.
 . requested on the specified rates. In Ex. P58, deviations and
     conditions submitted by the contractor as Item No 4, stated that
     such tools and plants listed in Ex. P52(d) shall be sold to him
     on outright sale at book value deducting depreciation ·and the
  . cost may be recovered on prorata basis from his bills. The fuH ·
     Boar~. in its decision dated 19.11.1982, had accepted the H
    806     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A above special condition of the contractor. It is relevant to point
  out that these items includes tipper wagons loco, louder, existing
  truck lines and pipes, items which can only be hired to the
  contractor as per clause E1-091 of the General Conditions of
  the contract. It is the case of the prosecution that it was the
B decision of the Board to sell those items of tools .and plants
  which includes very costly foreign imported materials. The
  official examined on the side of the prosecution pointed out that
  there is no provision in the general conditions of the contract
  enabling the Board to effect sale of those tools and plants to
c the contractor. However, certain materials belonging to the
  Board mentioned in Clause E1-093 and not covered by the list
  mentioned in Clause E1-091 could be sold to the contractors
  if available to the Board. The evidence led in clearly shows that
  the sale of materials listed in Clause E1-093 supersedes the
  general conditions of contract. In other words, it is clear from
0
  the evidence that those materials which were not mentioned in
  the Special Conditions were sold to the contractor on outright
  sale. In this regard, it is useful to refer the evidence of
  Udayabhanu Kandeth PW-136, Auditor attached to the
  Accountant General Office which shows that 126 items of tools
E and plants were sold to the contractor of which the cost of 117
  items was Rs. 16.5 lakhs. The Auditor of the Board, who was .
  examined as PW-130, also explained about the sale of tools
  and plants to the contractor, which was not provided in the
  agreement. It is clear from the evidence that the sale of tools
F and plants which could only be hired to the contractor as per
  the list in E1-091 was against the objections raised by AS, the
  Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the Board
  during the relevant period. In his report, AS had noted that the
  financial implications involved in the sale of items of tools and
G plants were not considered either by the Board or by the officers
  of the Board at the time when the full Board decided to sanction .
  the above special condition No. 4 of the contract. These
  aspects have been duly considered by the Special Court,
  namely, that the tools and plants which are only to be hired as
H per Clause E1-091 to the contractor, however, the Board
   V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 807
             & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  permitted outright sale which is detrimental to the financial        A
  interest of the Board. These important aspects have been
  overlooked by the High Court while upsetting the decision of
  the Special Court.

       24. In addition to the same, the prosecution has led in         B
  further evidence to show that the contractor was favored in
  several aspects. PW-128, V. Ramanarayanan, Superintending
  Engineer, in his evidence has stated that pental placer, an
  imported item not included in the list for issue on hire, was sold
  to the contractor, the sale value of w~ich was Rs. 4 lakhs and
  according to him only lump sum recoveries were made from             C
  the CC bills of the contractor, instead of prorata recovery as
  provided in the agreement. This also caused loss of interest
  on the sale price of materials. He further deposed that 30 items
  of spares were issued to the contractor costing Rs. 6 lakhs and
  when he calculated the total value of spares and materials           D
  issued to the contractor it came around Rs. 36 .lakhs, out of
  which, only a portion was recovered by the Board from the
  contractor vide Ex P517-P519. This witness has also pointed
  out that there were several items sold to the contractor without
  obtaining sanction of the Board.                                     E

  Return of empty cement bags by the Contractor

       25. Another special condition sanctioned by the Board in
  favour of the Contractor relates to the return of empty cement
  bags. This speCial condition provided that the Contractor shall      F
  return only 50% of empty cement bags in good condition. Ext.
  P-33, Audit Enquiry Report of ldamalayar Project Circle states
  that the Contractor had to return 65, 100 empty cement bags,
  the value of which was calculated at more than Rs.1 lakh.
  According to the Auditor, because of the special condition, the      G
  Board had sustained a loss of Rs.1,08,879.75. The Financial
  Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, who arrayed as AS, had
  stated in Ext. P-416 that without evaluating the exact financial
  implications, sanction was accorded by the Board to the special
~ c_o_ndition regarding return of empty cement bags to the             H
                                    '
    808      SUPREME COURll REPORTS                 [2011) 2 S.C.R.

·A advantage of the Contractor for getting financial gain. Though
   it is stated that the condititjn only provides for return of 50%
   empty cement bags in good condition and for the remaining,
   the rate provided by the g1jmeral conditions of contract could
   be realised from the Contr~ctor, th.e fact remains, the special 1
 B condition which we are cqncemed does not provide for the
   realisation of value of the ~maining unreturned cement bags. .
                                I
         26. With regard to sp~cial conditions, the High Court has
   held that inasmuch as there is a provision in tender to enable
   the Contractor to get spedial conditions, it cannot be said that
 C the special conditions and deviations of the Contractor should
   not be accepted. Here, the High Court has missed the real
   issue as to whether all special conditions as requested by the
   Contractor can be sanctioned by the Board ·in violation of
   general conditions of contract, which is the standing order of
 D the Board applicable to ajl contracts and the policy adopted by
   the Board. Simply because there is a provision to enable the
   contractor to suggest sp~cial conditions advantageous to him,
   it does not mean that the Contractor can suggest any special
   condition which involve~ financial implication to the detriment
 E of the Board. As corr~ctly found by the Special Court, the
   special condition No.4 telating to sale of tools and plants is a
   favour done by the B:bard to the Contractor for obtaining
   financial gains at the risk of Board's loss. The Special Court
   has substantiated its finding on the point based on evidence
 F furnished by the audit~rs. However, the High Court relying on
   Ext D-28 provided for recovery of balance 50% of empty cement
   bags not returned ot returned in damaged condition and
   recovery will be effected as stipulated in the tender condition,
   erroneously concludeet no loss could be sustained to the Board.
 G It is relevant to point out that the special condition No.10 clearly
   states that the contractor is bound to return only 50% empty
   cement bags in goo~ condition. To make it clear, this condition
   supersedes the corrElsponding general condition of the contract.
    Therefore, the Con~ractor is bound to return 50% of empty
 H cement bags in goofJ condition and there is no need to pay the
   V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 809
             & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  price of balance 50%. Accordingly, the Board can act only on . A
  the basis of the special condition No.1 O regarding the return
  of empty cement bags and is not entitled to recover the value
  of balance 50% of unreturned cement bags. The contrary
  conclusion arrived at by the High Court relating to return of empty
  cement bags cannot be accepted.             ·                       B

  Fixation of security and retention:

            27. Yet another special condition involving financial
      implications sanctioned to the Contractor is with regard to the
      fixation of security and retention amount. Special Condition           C
      No.1 of Ext.P-588 deals with this subject. It is the prosecution
      case that restriction of security and retention amount is in
      violation of the provisions contaihed in the general conditions
      of the contract and it is a favour shown to the Contractor to
      make illegal gains at the expense of the Board. Clause E1-008          o
      of Ext. P52(c) is the provision relating to security deposit'of the
      Contractor which states that for major works where the cost of
      construction exceeds Rs.25 lakhs, the security deposit should
      be 2% of the PAC. In the case on hand, the PAC of ldamalayar
      contract wqrks exceeds Rs.25 lakhs. There is no dispute for            E
      the same. Th~ security for both works should be fixed at 2% of
   . the !;>AC. Clause E1-011 of ExtP-52 is the general conditions
      of contract (ind instruction to the tenderers dealing with
      retention of the money from the bills payable to the Contractor.
      As per this clause, from each bill of the Contractor 10% should
      be deducted towards additional security. However, the reterittbn       F
     !was not to exceed 5% of the PAC where cost of work exceeds
   . Rs.25 lakhs. Therefore, 5% of PAC is to be retained as
      retention amount for both these works. In this regard, it is
      relevant to refer the special condition. In the case of tunnel work,
      the retention and security is limited to Rs.5 lakhs which is clear     G
. ·· from Ext,P-71. Likewise, in the case of surge shaft, security is
      limited to Rs.1 lakh as evidenced by Ext.P-69. This is also
      strengthened from the evidence of PW-8 who was the
      Executive Engineer in the ldamalayar project. He explained that
   . the security amount and retention amount due from the                   H
     810      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 2 S.C.R.


  A contractor would come to Rs.12 lakhs. Inasmuch as the PAC
    for both works would come to Rs.2,45,80,796/-, the retention
    amount in the case of surge shaft work would come to Rs.7.2
    lakhs, which is 5% of the PAC. PW-8 has explained that the
    restriction of retention amount is a benefit shown to the
  B Contractor. In Ext.P-65, report of PW-7, also calculated financial
    loss that will be sustained by the Board in limiting security and
    retention amount of the Contractor. In the same report, PW-7
    also mentioned the loss of interest for the same. It is also
    pointed out that due to restricting the security and retention
  c amount as per the special condition No.1, sanctioned to the
    Contractor, the liquidated damages payable by the contractor
    shall not exceed the whole amount of retention plus security
    deposit. The result of restriction of security and retention is that
    the liquidated damages payable by the Contractor is also
  0 automatically restricted accordingly. In that event, the Board is
    not entitled to recover any amount by way of liquidated
    damages even if the Contractor is guilty of negligence or
    default. All these aspects have been properly scrutinized by the
    Special Court. No doubt, the High Court relied on the evidence
    of Madhavan Potti (PW-5) that acceptance of special
' E conditions in a contract is a normal procedure. In the same way,
    the High Court has also placed reliance on the evidence of
    Ramanarayanan (PW-21) that reduction of security and
    retention amount is also a normal procedure. A perusal of
    Kerala State Electricity Board Tender Regulations show that the
  F reduction of security deposit is permissible only in the case of'
    established firm/Company and that the security deposit of a
    new contractor shall not be reduced. The course adopted by
    the Board is contrary to the condition contained in Regulation
    No.25(c) of the Board's Regulations. Though the High Court has
  G observed that in all major contracts, it is an accepted practice
    to put a ceiling on the security and retention amount and there
    is no acceptable evidence to support such a finding, we are
    unable to accept the observation of the High Court that "for the
    success of execution of major contract works, small favours
  H are inevitable". We conclude that the above observation of the
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 811 .
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 High Court is based on a general opinion not supported by any    A
 material or evidence on record.
 Criminal Conspiracy
        28. On this aspect, the Special Court has analysed the
  evidence of witnesses and considered the documents B
  produced and marked by the prosecution and concluded that
  there is sufficient evidence for finding that a criminal conspiracy
  was hatched out at the instance of A1 (R.Balakrishna Pillai, the
  then Minister for Electricity) and P.K. Sajeev (A3) who was a
  close associate and political ally of A1. This was strengthened c ·
  by the evidence of l.K. Prabhakaran, Assistant Engineer, Quality
  Control, ldamalayar project who was examined as PW-21 and
  other witnesses. Nobody has challenged the relationship
  between A1 and A3. It is the case of the prosecution that a
  conspiracy was hatched out at the instance of A1 and others 0
  with the illegal object of getting the ldamalayar project fixed on
  one among themselves at exorbitant rates and make illegal
  profits. It is also the definite case of the prosecution that though
  the work was awarded in the name of K.P.Poulouse, one of the
  accused, it was actually executed by A3 and another accused E
  Paul Mundakkal (deceased). It has come in evidence that the
  amount of work was invested and payments were made by Paul
  Mundakkal and A3. As rightly observed by the Special Court,
  the relationship between A1 and A3 is a relevant factor in
· arriving at the circumstances leading to the formation of the F
  conspiracy. The evidence led in normally show that A3 was an
  intimate friend of A1 and very closely moving with him who was
  the Minister for Electricity during the relevant period. PW-21,
  in his evidence, has stated that A3 was an active member and
  leader of Kerala Congress Party led by A1 at the time when
  works were allotted. PW-3, who was a watchman of the G
  Inspection Bungalow at ldamalayar was examined on the side
  of the prosecution has stated that A1 and A3 used to come and
  stayed in the Inspection Bungalow. He further asserted that it
  was A3 and the deceased Paul Mundakkal, who were
  supervising the work at site. In addition to the evidence of PW- H ·
    . 812   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A 3, the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 8 who were Engineers at the
  relevant time at ldamalayar worksite and supervising execution
  of works corroborated the evidence of PW-3. PWs 24, 25 and
  26 also supported the above claim of the prosecution: PW-25,
  one of the workers at ldamalayar also deposed that he was
B working with A6, .who was managing ldamalayar works. PW-
  26, another worker also stated that when he went to the house
  of A3, he saw A 1. in his house.

       29. The prosecution has established the relationship and
C friendship between A 1 and A3 by placing acceptable evidence.
  The nomination of A3 to Board's Consultative Council was
  made at the instance of A 1. Under Section 16 of the Electricity
  (Supply) Act, 1948, the Constituting Authority is the State
  Government. The evidence led in by the prosecution shows that
  A 1 took· initiative to include the name of A3 in the list of
D nominees for constituting the Consultative Council. The
  evidence of PWs 18, 27 and 51 and Ext.180(c) establish the
  case of the prosecution. The evidence further shows that the
  mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 16 of the
  Act regarding the constitution of Consultative Council was not
E adhered to by A 1 who wanted to include A3 in the panel which
  states that the State Government may constitute the
  Consultative Council considering all representatives of power
  generating companies and other persons in consultation with
  the representative bodies of various interests, namely, industry,
F commerce, agriculture, transport etc. It makes it clear that ..
  consultation with the representative bodies of various interests
  is a· mandatory condition precedent for appointment of a
  Member by the Government in the Board's Consultative
  Committee. But in the case on hand, from the evidence, it is
G clear that there was no such consultation by the Government
  before making nomination of A3 who was the Secretary of
  Kothamangalam Bus Owners Association. It was pointed out
  that usually the representatives of State Level Organisers
  representing various interests alone were nominated after
H consultation by the Government with such bodies. Admittedly,
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 813
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 A3 was not representing any State Level Bus Owners A
 Association. This is evident from the evidence of PWs 31 and
 16. It has also come in evidence that on 30.07.1983, in a ·
 Confer~nce held on ldamalayar Inspection Bungalow, attended
 by various officers of the Board and others connected with the
 execution of ldamalayar work, A 1 declared in public that A3 B
 was his bosom friend and requested everybody to cooperate
 with him for the successful completion of the project work.

       · 30. The prosecuti.on has established the relationship of A 1
   and K.P Poulose even before awarding of contract. In C
   November 1982 itself, A1 had chosen K.P. Poulose as
   prospective contractor for execution of the work which fact is
   spoken to by T.M. Prabha {PW-122) and also by
   Muraleedharan Pillai {PW-46). We have already adverted to the
   evidence of PW-46 in detail in the earlier paragraphs. Their
   evidence shows that when they met A 1 requesting for the award D
   of the tunnel driving work to the workers at ldamalayar, who
 . were brought from ldukki, Kulamavu etc, A 1 told them that the
   execution of the ldamalayar work is proposed to be given to
   K.P. Poulose. This was on 29.06.1981 i.e. well prior to the
· execution of ,the contract, and indicate that there was prior E
   contract be~een A1 and K.P. Poulose regarding the award of ·
   contract-~ork at ldamalayer.                  ·        ··

      · 31. The role played by A3 in fixing the con.tract to K.P.
. Poulose is also relevant to infer the formation of agreement         F
  between himself and A 1, the Minister for Electricity. In addition
  to the same, the prosecution has adduced acceptable
  evidence that a company by name Hydro Power Construction
  Company was registered as a partnership firm with K.P.
  Poulose as Managing Partner and A3 and Paul Muridakkal as            G
  Working Partners. Further, close relatives of K.P. Poulose, A3
  and Paul Mundakkal were parties to the partnership deed. The
  object of the partnership was to execute the ldamalayar tunnel
  work and also the surge shaft work in the name of the Company.
  The said firm was an assessee under the income tax Act which
                                                                       H
      814      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011) 2 S.C.R.


 A is evident from Ex. P245, the income-tax assessment of the firm
   in the year 1984-85 and 1985-86. K.P. Poulose, A3 and Paul
   Mundakkal were submitting income tax returns and this is
   evident from the evidence of PW-123, an Income-tax
   practitioner. In addition to the same, when A3 was questioned
 B under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted that he invested good
   amount for the work and visited the site to watch the progress
   of the work. The fact that A 1, while as a Minister for Electricity,
   interfered with the award of the contracts of the Board were
   spoken to by PW-64, PW-66, PW-138 and PW-146 which we
 c have already discussed in the earlier paragraphs. It is also
   clear that A 1 was awaiting for a probable contractor of his
   choice to undertake the ldamalayar works at exorbitant rates.

           32. There was labour agitation prevailing at ldamalayar
      work site. The workers brought from Moolamattom, Kulamavu
· D   etc. went on strike demanding execution of the work on piece
      rate basis and also for absorption in permanent service of the
      Board. At the time, when the tendering process of the work was
      started by the Chief Engineer, Bharathan, strike situation was
      pending at ldamalayar which continued till the work was .
 E    awarded in 1982. It is in evidence that after execution of the
      agreement of the ldamalayar work by K.P. Pou lose, there was
      obstruction from the striking workers preventing him from
      entering the worksite and consequently A 1 interfered and
      settled the labour dispute by awarding a compensation of Rs.
 F    11 lakhs to the striking workers and the worksite was made
      clear free of any labour unrest. It is the prosecution's case that
      this was done to help the contractor, a party to the conspiracy
      for execution of the work and make illegal profit therefrom. The
      evidence of PW-7, Chief Engineer and other witnesses stated
 G    that the awarding of ldamalayar work at exorbitant rate could
      have been avoided in case the labour issue was settled earlier.
      The prosecution has also highlighted labour unrest at ldamalayar
      which was kept pending at the instance of A 1 and other
      interested parties so as to make it appear that no contractor
 H    will come forward to undertake the contract, so much so that
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI                  815
           & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 there is possibility of choosing a contractor of their choice for   A
 the execution of the work at exorbitant rate.

        33. The prosecution has also highlighted that to achieve
  the illegal object of finding the contract in the name of K.P.
  Poulose at exorbitant rate, the pre-qualification system was       B
  introduced by the Board vide order Ex. P576 dated 24.09.1981.
  This was after tendering process has started for the ldamalayar
_ work. One Alexander Vellappally, who was examined as PW-
  138, explained before the Court that pre-qualification bid
  system was misused by the Board to safeguard vested interest
  by choosing contractors of their choice. From the proceedings      C
  initiated by the Board on 19.11.1982, passing a resolution to
  award the work to K.P. Poulose, a scheme of pre-qualification
  bid was successfully operated by the Board authorities at the
  instance of A1 for paving the way clear to K.P. Poulose to get
  the work at a very high rate.                                      D

      34. With regard to the relationship between A 1 and A3,
 the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-19,
 receptionist of the Paramount Tourist Home who has stated
 that A3 was occupying a room on 17.11.1982 and 19.11.1982           E
 on rent at Paramount Tourist Home. Exs. P185, 186 and 187
 are registers maintained in the Tourist Home and relevant
 entries the'rein were marked and proved by PW-19. According
 to him, A3, took a room in the Tourist Home at 11 :50 a.m. on
 17.11.1982 and vacated the room on 5:00 p.m. on 19.11.1982.
 The Special Court noted the significance of his stay during the
                                                                     F
 above period at Thiruvananthapuram. A3, in all probability, was
 at Thiruvananthapuram to meet A1 and also to meet PW-7,
 Chief Engineer, A6 and A7, to work out the scheme for getting
 the contract in favour of K.P. Poulose at a higher rate after
 avoiding other tenderers. It is further evident that A3 took the    G
 room on 17.11.1982 when the Full Board meeting was
 considering the tender of K.P. Poulose and left the room ori
 5:00 p.m. on 19.11.1982 after the tender was awarded to K.P.
 Poulose. The close intimacy of A3 with A 1 is well known and
 his influence over A1 might have persuaded A6 and A7 to fix         H
    816      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.

 A the contract on K.P. Poulose. PW-7, Chief Engineer has -
    deposed before the Court that A3 met him on 04.11.1982 and
    requested him to make a recommendation for awarding the
    contract to K.P. Poulose. A3 also told PW-7 that when A1 was
    talking over phone to PW-7, while in the office of the Chairman
  B of the Board, the witness was present in the chamber of A1
    and asked PW-7 what was the difficulty in recommending the
    contract even after A1 directed him to do so. The Special Court,
    after analysing the evidence in detail found that A3 is the man
    behind the manuring for getting the contract awarded to K.P.
  c Poulose. K.P. Poulose, however, was only a benamidar and
    A3 and Paul Mundakkal were the beneficiaries though the work
    was awarded in the name of K.P. Poulose. The prosecution has
    also highlighted and proved that A1 was awaiting for a better
    contractor, who would quote higher rate, when PW-14S
    Kamalasanan, Managing Partner, We-Build was not willing to
  0
    quote a higher rate as desired by A1. The role played by AS in
    the matter of hatching out the conspiracy and the fulfillment of
    the unlawful object is proved by evidence, particularly, from the
    evidence of PW-7. From the above materials, it is clear that a
    criminal conspiracy among A1, A3 and AS can be inferred. A1,
  E as Minister for Electricity is all in all dealing with the efforts of
    the Board including the awarding or cancellation of the
    contracts. The officers and the Board members were under his
    pressure and fear which clearly seen from the statements of
    prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs 8, 3S, SO, 62, 138, 140,
  F 64, 6S etc. It is also relevant to point out that A6 and A7
    avoided considering the request of PW-4 in his telegram sent
    to the Board. We have already adverted to the fact that it was
    Sunny K. Peter, PW-4, who quoted a lesser rate than K.P.
    Poulose. He quoted only 135% above PAC. By arranging the
  G Board meeting on 19.11.1982, with short notice of less than
    24 hours, the intention was to avoid other tenderers and to
    achieve the object of conspiracy to award the contract to K.P.
    Poulose who alone was present on 17.11.1982 and
    19.11.1982. The request of E.M. Varkey for fixing another date
· H for participating in the discussion for award of the contract was
· V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 817
        "   & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 also rejected. From these materials, as rightly concluded by the      A.
 Special Court, it leads to a conclusion that several out of way
 methods were adopted by the Board at the instance.of A1 for
 achieving the object of conspiracy.

         35. As rightly pointed out by the Special Court, the          B
   confirmation of Hydro Power Construction Company consisting
    of A3, A4 and Paul Mundakkal and their close associates and
    relations for execution of ldamalayar contract work, A3
    supervising the execution of the contract work and the visit of
   A4 at the worksite only on rare occasions, the payment of           C
    wages to the labourers by A3 and Paul Mundakkal are all
    proved various circumstances that the conspiracy among the
    accused continued to operate even after the award of the
    contract. The High Court failed to consider various instances
    and materials placed by the prosecution in respect of charge
· relati11g to conspiracy. According to the High Court, "the proved    D
. circumstances are not sufficient to hold that there was
'. conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution or as found by the
1
    Special Court.• Before us, it was demonstrated that several
    material aspects have not been considered by the High Court,
    for e·xample, the stay of A3 at Paramount Tourist Home>            E
    Thiruvananthapuram on the crucial dates i.e., on 17.11.1982 to
    19.11.1982 h.as not been considered .by t1ie High Court in the
  · correct perspective. As pointed ·out by the appellant, the High
    Court ought to have found that the evidence relating to A3 at
  · Paramount Tourist Home is only to bring out one of the             F
    circumstances leading to the formation of criminal conspiracy
    hatched out by the accused. In fact, A3 has admitted his stay
    in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement at Thiruvananthapuram
    on those dates, hence, finding by the High Court on this aspect,
    faulting with the Special Court cannot be sustained. Even          G
    though, the High Court has admitted that A 1 and A3 belonged
    to the same political party and close relationship exists
    between the two, the nomi~ation of A3 in the Consultative
    Council of the Board as evidenced by Ex.P-180 was
                                1




    unfortunately not recognised' l;>y the High Court as a material    H
    818      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A evidence proved by the prosecution. Insofar as claim of PW-3
  that it was he who settled the bill in the inspection bungalow,
  the perusal of his entire oral evidence clearly supports the case
  pleaded by the prosecution insofar as the close association
  between A1 and A3 during their visit to the worksite. PW-7,
B former Chief Engineer, a most reliable witness was examined
  in the presence of A3 on 04.11.1982 in the Board's office.
  There is no necessity to corroborate or further material in
  addition to the oral evidence of PW-7. As rightly analysed and
  concluded by the Special Court, there is no infirmity in the
c evidence of PW-7 merely because there is no documentary
  evidence in respect of the presence of A3 at the Board's
  meeting. The evidence of PW-7 cannot be ignored.

         36. The High Court very much accepted the stand of the
    accused that it was a collective decision of the Board, we have
D   already discussed the reasons stated in Ex P-550(a) for
    awarding contract in favour of K.P. Poulose at exorbitant rate.
    The reasons relied on by the Board exposes the omission and
    negligence on its part in fixing the contract with PW-146
    Kamalasanan or E.M. Varkey or with Kuriakose PW-22 or PW-
E   4 Sunny K. Peter, who quoted lower rates then K.P. Poulose.
    Even before us, learned senior counsel appearing for the
    accused reiterated that it was a collective decision of the
    members of the Board to award the contract in favour of K.P.
    Poulose. We have already highlighted the reasoning of the
F   Special Court relating to the important fact that contract was
    awarded at exorbitant rate, reduction in retention and security
    amount, return of 50% empty cement bags and also
    acceptance of special conditions for the sale of tools and plants.
    In the instant case, all the ingredients of criminal conspiracy are
G   satisfied for convicting A 1, A3 and A6 for the offence charged
    against them.

    Special mention about PW-7, retired Chief Engineer of the
    Board & PW-46

H         37. The High Court as well as learned senior counsel
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 819
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  appearing for the accused commented the evidence of PW-7 A
  by saying that there are inherent improbabilities and
  inconsistencies and his evidence is not cogent and convincing
  whereas among several witnesses examined, prosecution
  heavily relied on the statement of PW-7, a retired Chief
  Engineer. He retired from service on March 1985. He joined B
  the service of the Board on July 1954 as Junior Engineer and
  prior to that he was in the Electricity Department. It has come
  in evidence that he gained vast experience since he worked
  in various projects such as Chakulam project,
  Neriyamangalam, ldukki, Kakakd and ldamalayar project. It is _c
  also seen from his evidence that he participated in four major
  projects. He first examined on the side of t~e prosecution on
  28.03.1996 and at that time he was 66 years old. In this
  background, let us test his evidence as discussed in the earlier
  part of our order. The prosecution heavily relied on his evidence~
                                                                       0
  and, in fact, Mr Shanti Bhushan in support of his argument _
  mainly relied on the evidence of PW-7. By his rich experience
  and worked as a Chief Engineer at the relevant time, namely,
  when ldamalayar project was commissioned, PW-7 furnished
  all the details with reference to various documents such as his
  report, opinion, minutes of the meeting of the Board with E
. reference to ldamalayar project. No doubt, all the three senior
  counsel appearing for the accused A 1, A3 and A6 severely
  criticized his conduct in not answering many of the questions          •-
  in his cross examination. It is true that in chief-examination, PW-
  7 highlighted various aspects with reference to documents such F
. as opinion, report and Board's proceedings and minutes
- thereon. From the perusal of his cross-examination, it cannot
i be concluded that he didn't answer or elaborate any of the
  question put by the counsel for accused. It is true that for certain
; questions he answered that he has to verify from the records G
  and for certain questions he didn't answer or answered stating
  that "he do not remember". It is relevant to point out that he
  retired from service in March 1985 and he was called upon to
  give evidence only in March 1996 nearly after 15 years of the
  commissioning of the ldamalayar project. If we consider all H
    820     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A these aspects, there is no reason to reject his entire evidence
  as claimed by the respondents/accused. In his evidence, he has
  mentioned that on the submission of tender by K.P. Poulose,
  it was noted that he quoted 189% above PAC. Agreement
  submitted by K.P. Poulose has been marked as Ex. P-52 and
s in that Paul Mundakkal was signed as witness. It is further seen
  that as Chief Engineer, he sent letters to K.P. Poulose and
  Kuriakose who was another persons submitting tenders on
  28.07.1982. He made a note that the tender is not in proper
  form and it contains many mistakes and requested them to
c rectify the mistakes within a time schedule. In this regard, it is
  useful to refer his categorical statement which, he deposed
  before the Court that "I considered it as a special case
  because the engineer member Mr. Ramabhadran Nair (A6)
  informed me that Mr. Balakrishna Pillai (A 1) has a special
  interest to award this work to Mr. K.P. Pou/ose (A4), hence the
0
  mistakes happened in the tender should be rectified with
  K.P.Poulose himself and make a circumstance to award the
   work to K.P. Poulose .. ." About the disqualification of tender
   offered by Kuriakose,. PW-7 deposed the decision was taken
   by a committee because he could not rectify the mistakes as
E directed by him. In respect of a question put to PW-7 about the
   response of A6 and A7, he answered "they stated that they
   are happy in disqualifying Mr. Kuriakose". It is also seen from
   his evidence that after noting that the rate quoted by K.P.
   Poulose is higher rate, he forwarded the said information for
F remarks of FA and CAO. He also asserted that A6 told him that
  A 1-Minister Balakrishna Pillai is very much particular to award
   both the works to K.P. Poulose. It is further seen that he
   highlighted that without solving the problem of tunnel workers
   no contractor can do the work. According to him, because of
G this reason he informed A6 to take steps to solve the problem
   of workers and in fact PW-7 met A6 at his office on 04.11.1982
   at 11 :00 a.m. When the issue relating to labour problem was
   under discussion, according to PW-7, the P.A. of Board
   Chairman Sankaran Nair approched him and informed that
H Minister Balakrishna Pillai is willing to talk to me through
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 821
           & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  telephone of the Board's Chairman. In view of the same, A
  according· to PW-7, he suddenly entered into the cabin of
  Board's Chairman which is the next room and took the
. telephone. He introduced himself through the phone and
  according to PW-7 "A 1 asked him why you were not
  recommended the tenders of ldamalayar tunnel and surge .B
  shaft to ·the Board. I replied to A 1 I am going to talk about it
  with the contractor today. and I am having same problem in
   this matter. There is only one tender submitted by K.P.
  Poulose, the rate is very exorbitant, if the work is awarded
   without solving the problem of tunnel workers, K.P. Poulose       c
   cannot start the work. A 1 replied that you don't look upon it,
   K.P. Poulose wili purchase all these workers, we granted this
   higher rate for that also, hence you recommend the Board to
   award both the works to K.P. Poulose without any delay. Then .
 · the conversation was concluded. I immediately visited the 0
   room of A6. I told to A6 about the call of Minister and my reply
   and difficulties. At that time A6 told him that the Minister
   directly asked you, so you do it as he say." The following
  ·statement is also relevant about the conduct of A 1 and how
   much he was interested in awarding contract in favour of K.P. E
   Paulose. PW-7 deposed "the face of A1 shows much anger.
   He explained A 1 that if tenders are invited after solving the
   problem of tunnel workers, rate will be reduced, that is
   profitable to the Board. A 1 replied with higher anger that I know
   how to look after the Board, I do not want any advice from your
 · people, are you approaching me with intimate talks, after this, F
    I had no talk anything about it." It is further seen that thereafter
    a note was sent by Sreedharan Pillai and Unnikrishnan to
    reCOQ1mend for awarding both the works to K.P. Poulose.
    According to him, he received all the documents as per the
    direction of A 1. Though, several reports and minutes of the G
  ·Board meeting were·pressed into service by the respondents/
    accused in· order to strengthen their case that all important
    decisions accepting the contract in favour of K.P. Poulose
 · 1ncludihg several special conditions etc., it is clear that due to
    the· pressure of A6, the then member of the Board, who was H!
                                                                         i
    822       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A close to A 1, as well as the desire of A 1 in awarding the contract
  in favour of K.P. Poulose with higher rate, PW-7 had no other
  option except to execute the directions of A6 and A 1.

        38. Another incident which is relevant about the
B performance of PW-7 and response from A1 and A6, in his
   evidence, he explained that since the progress of both the
   works.were very slow, he inspected the site on 23.09.1983. Due
   to slow progress in the works, he castigated Paul Mundakkal
   who conducted the works. After few days, A3 and Paul
   Mundakkal came to his house and A3 told him that he is
C disturbing them without any reason by way of sending letters
   and reports, A3 further warned that if it continues, it will be
   harmful to them. He also informed him that the Minister agreed
  to avoid concrete lining works of surge shaft but only PW-7
   opposed it. He also assured that if PW-7 gives his consent,
D they are ready to give anything. He further explained that he
  informed them that it is impossible for him because the technical
  design is his duty, being a Chief Engineer. After few days from
  this incident, on 13.10.1983, he was transferred and appointed
  as an Advisor of Electricity Board in respect of Hydroelectric
E Projects. He further explained that such a Post was not there
  and his transfer order was signed and taken on 13.10.1983 at
  8.00 p.m. in a lodge where he was residins at
  Thiruvananthapuram. He highlighted that for the post of Advisor,
  except chair, table, no other facilities including telephone facility,
F official vehicle steno and typist were provided. After him, A2
  was appointed as ldamalayar Chief Engineer. He also informed
  the Court that he believed that he was transferred due to the
  difference of opinion with P.K. Poulouse, A3 and Paul
  Mundakkal
G
       39. As regards the decision of the Board and his role, he
  has stated that the Chief Engineer has no right to question the
  Board's decision. However, he clarified that when he was
  asked to give his opinion or report, he is bound by the said
H direction. ExP-65 is the note submitted by him in connection
  V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 823
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 with the work. P-64 is the note submitted by him in connection       A
 with the surge shaft work which is also dated 06.11.1982.
 Thereafter, in 1982, he was transferred

      40. With· regard to his financial and family position, he
 answered that he built two-storied building having built-up area
                                                                      8
 of 2700 sq. ft. in 1965 after taking loan from the Board and he_
 sold this building and property after his retirement. He is having
 six daughters. He constructed a shop room having 15 ft. length
 and 12 ft width.

      41. The analysis of the evidence of PW-7 coupled with the       C
 other prosecution witnesses and other notes and report
 prepared for the Board clearly indicate that though· he reminded
 that certain things are not permissible, because of the fact that
 the beneficiaries of the contract are known to A1 and A6, he
 has no other option except to prepare notes in such a way and        D
 ultimately the Board accepted the same.

         42. We have already pointed out the statements of PW-
  46 who was a member of RSP, a political party. According to
  l:lim, the workers of ldamalayar have a Union. The name of the      E
  said Union is Kerala Construction Labour Union and he was
· the General Secretary of that Union. In his evidence, he has
  informed the Court that the labourers who were doing tunnel
  work in ldamalayar became jobless from 10.04.1981. They             .. ··:i....



  were skilled labourers and had good experience from projects        F
  like ldukki, Kulanam etc. He, as the President and others
  decided to file a memorandum before the Minister Balakrishna
  Pillai. The memorandum was prepared in the letter pad of
  Kerala Construction Labour Union. PW-46 and Srikantan Nair
  signed the said memorandum. It has also come in his evidence
  that atthe time of submission of his memorandum PW-46 and           G
  others requested the Minister to give work to the poor labourers
  at least on piece rate basis for which A1 replied "no question
  of giving work to the labourers. It was given as contract to K.P.
  Poulouse .... n The prosecution has highlighted the above
  statement of PW-46 to the effect that A 1 decided and               H
      824     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.

 A determined to award ldamalayar contract to group of persons
   headed by K.P.Poulouse and not to the workers who prepared
   to work on piece-rate basis.

       About maintainability of the appeal by the present
     . appellant:
 8
           43. Mr. Lalit and Mr. Saran at the end of their arguments
      submitted that the appellant being a third party unconnected with
      the Board or the State is not entitled to challenge the decision
      of the High Court acquitting the accused from all the charges
  C levelled against them. In support of the above claim, they very
      much relied on the decision of this Court dated 23.07.2010
      rendered in SLP Criminal No 2506 of 2009 - National
      Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi and Another 2010
      11 Scale 17. In this case, one Sunita then aged 21 years,
  o committed suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphide tablets
      on 14.04.2003. She left behind a suicide note wherein it was
      stated that she had taken tuitions from the accused, Amit, at
      her residence in Rajgarh Colony and during that period she had
      developed a deep friendship with him leading to physical
  E relations as well. The accused also held out a promise of
      marriage but later backed off. She also stated in her suicide
      note that not only the accused continued to have sexual relation
      with her but also compelled her to have sexual relation with
      others as well, which was the reason for committing the suicide.
·•F The trial Judge relied on the dying declaration, which was the
      suicide note, convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC and
    . sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
      with a fine of Rs.5000/- and also imprisonment for life under
      Section 376 IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Questioning the
      above order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred
  G an appeal before the High Court. The High Court ultimately
      found that as the case under Section 306 was not made out
      confirmed the conviction under Section 376 IPC. Taking note
      that the accused had already undergone imprisonment for 5
      years and 6 months and his entitlement for remission on
  H
  v.s.·AcHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 825
            & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  account of his conduct in jail, his term of imprisonment for life A
  has been modified to one that of period already undergone.
   Neither the State nor the complainant or her relatives has
  chosen to file an appeal to this Court. However, National
  Commission for Women (in short 'NCW') filed a special leave ·
   petition against .the order of the High Court reducing the ~erm B
   of life imprisonment to that of period already undergone in
   respect of the conviction and sentence awarded by the High
 . court under Section 376. The question in that case was whether
   the NCW is competent or entitled to file an appeal in this Court
   against the conviction and sentence imposed by the High         c
· Court. This Court, after adverting to the relevant provisions
   namely, Section 377 Cr.PC and other decisions and finding
   that neither the State, which is the complainant, nor the heirs·
   of the deceased have chosen to file a petition in the High Court
   or in this Court dismissed the SLP filed by NCW as not 0
   maintainable and revoked the permission to file SLP vide this
   Court's order dated 02.04.2009.
      44. In the above referred NCW's case, admittedly the
 complainant was the State and neither the State nor the heirs
 of the deceased filed any appeal/petition before the High Court   E
 for enhancement of punishment or challenged the same by way
 of SLP before this Court.
      45. In our case, certain special features exist. Though we
 discussed earlier, it is apt to quote once again. During the      F
 pendency of the trial before the special Judge, an application
 for withdrawal of the prosecution only against G. Gopalakrishna
 Pillai - accused No.5 was m'ade by the Special Public
 Prosecutor on 24.08.1992 under Section 321 Cr.P.C. which
 was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1992 in CC No.
 1 of 1991. -The main ground for such withdrawal was that with     G
 the available material successful prosecution against G.
 Gopalaf<rishna Pillai - accused No. 5 cannot be launched,
 hence, the trial against him will be unnecessary and the State
 also is of that opinion that the prosecution of A-5 may not be
 sustainable. With this information, the Special Public            H
    826      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A Prosecutor requested that by virtue of provisions contained in
   Section 321 of the CrP.C, necessary consent may be granted
   to withdraw the prosecution against the 5th accused - G.
   Gopalkrishna Pillai and the said accused may be discharged.
   The Special Judge considered the issue at length and after
B analyzing the .entire material and finding that there are enough
   materials to proceed against A-5 refused to give consent for
   withdrawal. This was taken up by way of revision before the
   High Court. The High Court set aside the aforesaid order
   passed by the Special Judge in the revision filed by the State
c of h:erala represented by the Superintendent of Police. The said
   order of the High Court was challenged by the present appellant
   namely, V.S. Achuthanandan, to this Court by way of special
   leave petition. After granting leave, the said special leave
   petition was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1994.
   After adverting to the elaborate reasonings of the special Judge
0
  and the conclusion of the High Court, this Court concluded that
  "there was no ground available to the High Court to set aside
  the well reasoned and justified order of the learned Special
  Judge rejecting the application of the Special Public Prosecutor
E and declining to give consent for withdrawal of prosecution. We
  may also add that there is nothing in the impugned order of the
  High Court which provides any legal basis for interfering with
  the aforesaid order made by the Special Judge. The High •
  Court's order must obviously be s'et aside." By setting aside
  the grder of the High Court, this Court restored the order of the
F Special Judge and declined to give consent for withdrawal of
  the prosecution and permitted the Special Judge to proceed
  further. It is not in dispute that when the very same appellant,
  namely, V.S. Achuthanandan filed special leave petition and
  later leave was granted, the very same respondent-accused
G parties in the said appeal did not raise any objection as to the
  maintainability of the appeal at the instance of V.S.
  Achuthanandan. Further though the State has not filed any
  appeal against the impugned order of acquittal by the High
  Court being arrayed as one of the respondents reported by a
H senior counsel to highlight its stand, in fact, Mr. R.S. Sodhi,
'
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R.. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 827
           & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  learned senior counsel for the State highlighted and supported A
  the ultimate conviction and sentence imposed by the Special .
  Judge and informed this Court that if this Court permits, they
  are ready to file an appeal with an application for condonation
· of delay. While appreciating the prayer made by Mr. R.S.
  Sodhi, we are not inclined to entertain such request at this B
  stage. However, the fact remains that taking note of the
   importance of the issue, allegations against the Minister and
   higher officials of the Board in respect of award of contract with
  the ulterior motive, the appellant approached this Court on
 ·earlier occasion when the State wanted to close the c
   prosecution against all the accused including the Minister based
   on the order of the High Court in respect of G. Gopalakrishna
   Pillai, A-5. Further when the very same appellant filed special
   leave petition before this Court and later leave was granted by
   this Court neither of these respondents raised any objection as
                                                                      0
   to the maintainability of the petition. On the other hand, a Bench
    of three Judges accepted the appellant's claim and set aside
    the order of the High Court based on which the Special Judge
    proceeded further and ultimately convicted and sentenced A-
    1, A-3 and A-6. In view of these factual details, learned senior
    counsel for the respondents-accused were not serious in E
    projecting the issue relating to maintainability as their first
    objection. We hold that the decision in NCW's case (supra)
    which was disposed of at the special leave petition stage is
  .not applicable to the case on hand.
                                                                     F
      46. For the same reasons, the decision of this Court in
 Latu Prasad Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2010) 5
 sec 1 is also not applicable to the case on hand since in the
 said decision, the question was whether the State Government
 (of Bihar) has competence to file an appeal from the judgment       G
 dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Special Judge, CBI (AHO),
 Patna, acquitting the accused persons when the case has been
 investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI)
 and this Court held that the appeal at the instance of the State
 Government is not maintainable. In view of the special              H
    828         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011J 2 S.C.R. .

A circumstances highlighted in the case on hand, we reiterate that
  the present appeal by the appellant - V.S. Achuthanandan
  against the order of acquittal by the High Court is maintainable.
  Our view has been strengthened by a decision of this Court in
  K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police and Others
B (2004) 3 sec 767. Accordingly we reject the contention raised
  by the learned senior counsel for the respondents.

    Conclusion

       47. The analysis of the materials placed by the prosecution,
C the plea of defence by the accused, the decision of the Special
  Court and the reasoning of the High Court, we are satisfied that
  the prosecution has established the following aspects insofar
  as the accused (A1), (A3) and (A6) are concerned:-

D         {a)    By awarding both the works of ldamalayar at a very
                 high and exorbitant rate with special conditions
                 having heavy financial implications.
          {b)    By reducing the retention and security amount.

E         {c)    By allowing the contractor to return only fifty per cent
                 of the empty cement bags.
  Having arrived at such conclusion, we are of the view that the
  High Court failed to appreciate in its proper sense the materials
  placed by the prosecution and brushed aside several important
F items of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Equally, we are
  unable to accept the conclusion of the High Court, namely, "the
    proved rircumstances are not sufficient to hold that there was
    conspiracy as alleged by the prosecutior.". On the other hand,
  we are satisfied that the Special Court after framing various
G points for consideration and after thorough discussion has
  accepted the case of the prosecution insofar as the work of
  driving the surge shaft, lining the surge shaft, balance driving
  the power tunnel and other allied works of ldamalayar Hydro
  Electric Power Project at a higher or exorbitant rates to the
H
 V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 829
           & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
contractor K.P. Poulose and the accused persons have abused         A
their official positions. The Special Court has also accepted the
prosecution case founding that A1 along with K.P. Poulose,
Paul Mundakkal and other accused persons entered into
criminal conspiracy and rightly convicted th.em. In our
consid.ered view, the High Court committed a grave error in         B
acquitting the accused without adverting to the reliable and
acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution.           ·
     48. Now, coming to the sentence part, it is relevant to note
that the contract was awarded to K.P. Poulose, (since
deceased) the fourth accused, as early as on 19.11.1982. After C
various agitations, discussions in the Assembly, appointment
of a Commission by the Government and based on the report
of the Commission, the State Government initiated a
prosecution which resulted in C.C. No. 01 of 1991 and trial
prolonged upto November 19, 1999. Thereafter, the matter was D
kept pending at the High Court from 1999 to October 2003,
when the High Court pronounced its order acquitting all the
accu~ed and the matter was tak_en up to this Court by the
present appellant initially by way of special leave petition in
2005, leave was granted in 2006 and it was kept pending till . E
this date, we feel that aH the three accused have undergone
agony of these proceedings for nearly two decades, we are of
the opinion that ends of justice would be met by aw~rding
rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 10,0001~
each, and the same shall be paid within eight weeks, in default, F
to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
      49. Before winding up, it is our duty to point out in all the
 cases in which charges relating to corruption by public servants
 are involved, normally; take longer time to reach its finality. The
 facts and figures, in the case on hand, which we have already G
 mentioned clearly show that the contract relates to the year
 1982 and the State Government initiated prosecution in 1991,
 however, the trial prolonged for nearly nine years and the
 Spe~ial Court passed an order convicting the accused only on
·19.11.1999. When the matter was taken. up by way of appeal H
    830      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A by the accused to the High Court even in 1999 itself, the
  decision was rendered by the High Court acquitting all the
  accused only in 2003. In the same manner, though the appellant
  challenged the order of the High Court acquitting all the accused
  before this Court even in 2005, it has reached its finality only
B in 2011 by the· present order. Though the issue was handled
  by a Special Court constituted for the sole purpose of finding
  out the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case, the fact
  remains it had taken nearly two decades to reach its finality.
  We are conscious of the fact that the Government of India,
c Department of Law & Justice is making all efforts for
  expeditious disposal of cases of this nature by constituting
  Special courts, however, the fact remains that it takes longer
  time to reach its destination. We are of the view that when a
  matter of this nature is entrusted to a Special Court or a regular
  Court, it is but proper on the part of the court concerned to give
0
   priority to the same and conclude the trial within a reasonable
   time. The High Court, having overall control and supervisory
  jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
   expected to monitor and even call for a quarterly report from
   the court concerned for speedy disposal. Inasmuch as the
E accused is entitled to speedy justice, it is the duty of all in charge
   of dispensation of justice to see that the issue reaches its end
   as early as possibl'3.
        50. Considering all the materials and in the light of the
F above discussion, we agree with the conclusion arrived.at by
  the Special Court and hold that the High Court has committed
  an error in acquitting the accused persons. Accordingly, R.
  Balakrishna Pillai (A1), P.K. Sajeev (A3) and Ramabhadran
  Nair (A6) are awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year with
G fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and the same shall be paid within
  eight weeks, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one
  month each. All the three accused are entitled remission for the
  period already undergone, if any, by them. The criminal appeal
  is allowed to the extent indicated above.
H R.P.                                                Appeal allowed.