Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Public Money Siphoned Away Illegally: Gujarat High Court Denies Quashing of FIR in GCERT Printing Scam

30 August 2024 3:35 PM

By: sayum


The Court rejects petitions challenging the FIR in a case involving alleged forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy resulting in a loss of ₹6.69 crores to the state exchequer. The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the petitions filed by Harshadbhai Govindbhai Patel and Nikunj R. Thekadi seeking to quash the FIR in the GCERT printing scam. The bench emphasized the serious nature of the allegations involving forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, which led to significant financial losses for the state. The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining integrity in public contracts and the severe consequences of violating public trust.

The case stems from a contract awarded by the Gujarat Council of Education Research & Training (GCERT) for printing educational materials. Reliable Art Printery Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Nikunj R. Thekadi, was awarded the contract as the lowest bidder. However, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Prakash Kapadia revealed that the company was allegedly overpaid by altering the tender terms post-approval, resulting in a loss of ₹6.69 crores to the government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit confirmed these discrepancies, prompting GCERT to initiate recovery proceedings and file an FIR against the accused.

The court underscored the gravity of the audit findings and the subsequent investigation. It noted that the accused manipulated tender documents and altered approved rates, thereby defrauding the state. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s stance that each criminal case must be evaluated on its own merits, emphasizing the uniqueness of the facts in this instance​​.

The court highlighted the coordinated efforts between the accused to alter tender conditions illicitly. It pointed out that such actions were not only a breach of contract but a deliberate attempt to cheat and cause financial harm to the public exchequer. The court quoted precedents establishing that criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused​​.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar elaborated on the elements of criminal breach of trust and forgery. He stated that the accused's actions demonstrated clear criminal intent and a violation of public trust. The alterations made to the tender documents without authorization, and the subsequent financial gains, fulfilled the criteria for offenses under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code​​.

The court reiterated the principles from the Supreme Court's rulings on the limits of the High Court’s power to quash FIRs. It stressed that the power should be used sparingly and only in cases where the FIR does not disclose any offense. In this case, the detailed allegations and supporting evidence warranted a full investigation​​.

Justice Suthar noted, "The actions of the accused are not mere breaches of contract but constitute a clear case of cheating, depicting a culpable intention to defraud the government"​​. He further added, "The alteration of tender documents post-approval reflects a deliberate and dishonest act aimed at siphoning off public funds"​​.

The dismissal of the petitions by the Gujarat High Court signifies a stern approach towards safeguarding public funds and ensuring accountability in public contracts. This judgment sends a strong message about the judiciary’s commitment to addressing corruption and upholding the principles of justice. The case will proceed to trial, reinforcing the legal framework against financial fraud and conspiracy in public administration.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2024

Harshadbhai Govindbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat

Latest Legal News