Case Summary : A Jayram vs. State of AP

A Jayram vs State of AP

Author : Darshi Sanghvi

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS

1995 AIR 2128, 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 333

BENCH

 Ray, G.N. (J)

INTRODUCTION

The present case of A Jayram vs State of AP shows how for convincing evidence, the accused (government officials) were acquitted and given a benefit of doubt. The case makes the efficiency of the police administration questionable and makes one realise the necessity of proper vigilance to curb such scandals.

FACTS

Fertilisers had to be transported from the port of arrival to the State of AP during times when the State was in urgent need of good quality fertilisers for the purpose of cultivation. These fertilisers were transported by government officials through entries and certificates that were considered to be fake. Hence, the State Police was entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out an enquiry which appeared to be delayed.

The State Assembly and newspapers, however, raised an issue regarding the same, which resulted in a CBI enquiry. The accused were acquitted by the Special Judge for Fertilizers Transport Cases (A.P.) in these criminal cases instituted against the officers and dealers. However, on the basis of appeals by the State of AP, the High Court of AP reversed the orders of acquittal and convicted all the appellants through impugned judgements. There’s no evidence that states that the fertilisers had not been delivered to the destination on the relevant date by proving the stock register at the relevant time.

Additionally, no witness from the godown’s locality was examined to show that on the particular dates no delivery of fertiliser at the destination had taken place. Evidence was given by lorry owners that their lorries did not carry the fertiliser and that such lorries had gone to different locations and some fertilisers were sold by the dealers to other persons.

ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW

Whether the acts of reversing the orders of acquittal and convicting the appellants come under the capacity of the High Court.

Whether the fertilisers in question were actually carried to the destination.

Whether the fertilisers were in the godown on the day they were received.

Whether the certificate issued by the government officials can be regarded as fake.

Whether the government officers are only responsible for certifying receipt of fertilisers or even for the verification of the stock.

JUDGEMENT

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidences pointed out herewith and the judgements given by both the courts, it is held that a large scale fraud has been committed in a prosecution case, on part of the government officials in conspiracy with the fertilizer dealers, regarding the transportation of fertilizers from ports of arrival to several destinations in Andhra Pradesh.

Despite being late in carrying out an effective enquiry, CBI has done a commendable job by examining lorry owners, their clerks, check post officials and fertiliser purchasers in order to prove that the fertilisers had not been transported in the manner alleged, but were rather transported based on false entries by government officials and by issuing fake certificates of the payment.

In the absence of convincing evidence regarding the non-delivery of fertilisers with reference to the stock position on the relevant date, it is difficult to establish the fact that the government officials issued fake certificates regarding about receipt of goods on those dates.

Simply on the basis of evidence provided by lorry owners, the non-delivery of fertilisers to the respective destinations by other means cannot be ruled out.

Furthermore, without unimpeachable direct evidence regarding the actual stock position at the receiving end, it can be held that the indirect circumstantial evidences do not establish the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Though the HC reversed the orders of acquittal in the conviction of the government officials, it probably felt the absence of convincing evidences and it is not unlikely that for the aforementioned reasons, the court charged the officials a token sentence of only Rs.100- for their serious offences.

Furthermore, some government officials who are also appellants in the present case, cannot be held guilty with surety, hence must be given the benefit of doubt. However, the dealers are not entitled to such a benefit of doubt. Hence, there’s no reason to raise objection regarding the orders of conviction passed against the dealers. Resultantly, Criminal Appeals Nos.163,165,166,184 and 185 of 1994 stand dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.164 of 1994 has been preferred by the dealers as well as the government officials. This kind of appeal shall stand allowed in part and conviction and the sentence passed against the government officials: appellants Nos. 3 to 5 is set aside and they are thus acquitted. However, the appeal preferred by appellants Nos. 1 & 2 stands dismissed.