SC Dismisses Plea For Discharge Against Engineer Accused Of Issuing Tenders, Forging Minister's Note

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea for discharge filed by K.H. Kamaladini, then Executive Engineer at the Public Works Department (PWD), Porvorim, Goa, in a case involving alleged forgery and issuance of tenders without mandatory publication in newspapers.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka (since retired) and Augustine George Masih considered the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges. The Court reiterated settled principles that:

Only materials forming part of the chargesheet may be examined at this stage;

- The court must determine whether there exists sufficient ground to proceed with trial;

- The court cannot weigh the evidence to distinguish the credible from the incredible;

- If, without cross-examination or rebuttal, the materials clearly show no offence was committed, discharge must follow; and

- If the materials create grave suspicion against the accused, the court must not discharge them.

The allegation against the appellant was that, after the Minister for PWD approved issuance of 19 tenders, the appellant inserted, above the Minister’s signature, the words: “approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue w/o."

The court noted that the appellant was accused of forging the document to give an impression that the added words originated from the Minister himself.

The Court further recorded that, according to the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), the inserted words were in the appellant’s handwriting. It was alleged that by omitting newspaper publication of the tender notices, loss was caused to the public exchequer—both in terms of potential revenue from sale of tender documents and the possibility of receiving competitive bids.

Taking the prosecution case at face value, the bench held that a prima facie case existed for proceeding against the appellant under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the Court clarified that the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were unsustainable. It found no allegation in the chargesheet that the appellant had secured any pecuniary advantage for himself or others, nor was there any suggestion of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property entrusted to him. Consequently, the Court set aside the framing of charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court thus upheld the order framing charges under Sections 409 and 468 IPC but quashed the orders of the Sessions Judge (dated February 15, 2023) and the High Court Single Judge (dated March 27, 2023) insofar as they related to the PC Act.

During arguments, counsel for the appellant submitted that the 19 tenders in question related to urgent work required to address a grave water crisis in Porvorim and other parts of North Goa. He argued that between October 21, 2009, and November 24, 2011, 741 reports and 847 works were executed on the basis of written instructions from the PWD Minister, specifically directing that tender notices not be published in newspapers.

The state, however, contended that the appellant’s conduct violated the Central Public Works Department Manual and that he was never authorised to contravene established procedures of the department.

The case originated from a complaint dated January 30, 2013, received by the Chief Minister and Chief Vigilance Officer of Goa. The complaint related to 19 short tender notices comprising 847 water supply works in Works Division XVII (PHE-N), PWD, Porvorim, where the mandatory newspaper publication of tender notices was allegedly bypassed.

Case Title: K H Kamaladini vs. State