The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

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

Similar News