A CBI court on Tuesday convicted former PWD engineer Joginder Singh, 58, under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to one year in jail and a ₹2,500 fine in an 18-year-old corruption case arising from irregularities in the construction tender of the judicial court complex in Budhlada.
Special judge, CBI, Baljinder Singh Sra, however, acquitted contractors Sudhir Kumar Singla and Manoj Kumar of all charges and also acquitted Joginder Singh of the charges of cheating, forgery, using forged documents, criminal conspiracy and the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case dates back to March 2008, when Joginder Singh was posted as executive engineer in the PWD B&R provincial division, Mansa. The department had sanctioned ₹7.98 crore for construction of the judicial court complex at Budhlada, while the tender notice initially put the estimated cost of civil work at ₹4.90 crore.
The tender process became the centre of the case after only one contractor, M/s Krishna Construction Company, Sangrur, remained in the fray. Two other firms were declared technically ineligible and were not issued tender forms.
The prosecution alleged that the construction firm initially offered a 2% rebate on its quoted rates. However, the tender file was subsequently processed on the basis of a 0.2% rebate. The vigilance bureau alleged that Singh concealed the 2% rebate letter and got the tender processed on the lower rebate, causing an estimated loss of ₹11.68 lakh to the government.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution alleged that the construction firm initially offered a 2% rebate on its quoted rates. However, the tender file was subsequently processed on the basis of a 0.2% rebate. The vigilance bureau alleged that Singh concealed the 2% rebate letter and got the tender processed on the lower rebate, causing an estimated loss of ₹11.68 lakh to the government.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution also alleged irregularities in the execution of the project. A vigilance technical team later found construction defects and said a portion of the boundary wall collapsed within a year, resulting in ₹5.83 lakh expenditure on reconstruction and repairs.
Another allegation concerned ₹1.22 crore released through letters of credit for public health works. According to the court record, a substantial portion of the amount was diverted to other works instead of being transferred to the Public Health Department for the intended purpose.
The case reached the vigilance bureau after a writ petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana high court. Following the court’s directions, the vigilance bureau conducted an inquiry and registered an FIR on July 23, 2011. The challan was presented in 2013, and charges were framed on May 1 of that year. The trial continued for more than 13 years.
A key prosecution witness, then PWD head draftsman Ram Singh, testified that Singh had shown him two rebate documents bearing the same diary number, one reflecting a 2% rebate and another showing 0.2%. Ram Singh claimed that the executive engineer directed him to prepare the comparative statement on the basis of the lower rebate and destroy the earlier document. He instead retained it and later produced it before the high court.
However, the special court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the rebate document was forged or that the accused knowingly used a forged document. It also held that the evidence did not prove cheating, criminal conspiracy or that Singh obtained a pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position.
The court nevertheless held that Singh had violated statutory and departmental directions while handling the tender and public funds. It found that he failed to obtain the required technical approval and diverted ₹70 lakh meant for public health works towards other projects.
The court convicted Singh under Section 166 IPC for knowingly disobeying legal directions as a public servant. Singla and Manoj Kumar were acquitted of all charges.
The court also directed Joginder Singh’s one-year sentence to run concurrently with sentences in two previous cases. As he was already in custody in another case, the court suspended the sentence until September 9 to enable him to file an appeal, subject to his furnishing the requisite bonds.