Upendra Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India through CBI

2026:JHHC:20072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.617 of 2019 With Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.597 of 2019 With Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.614 of 2019

¶3

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2019 and Order of sentence dated 28.05.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-III -cum- Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in R.C Case No.21(A)/ 2009(R)]

¶4

Upendra Kumar Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Chandrika Prasad Singh, resident of Village – Bhikhari Chapra, P.O – Latarahian, P.S. Parsa, District – Saran, Bihar.

¶5

..... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.617 of 2019]

¶6

Umesh Paswan, S/O Late Dev Narayan Paswan, Aged About 58 years, Permanent Resident of Bairiya, P.O Bairiya, P.S. Sampatchak, District Patna (Bihar) presently residing at Behind Bhagwan Hotel, Near Tupudana Industrial Area, P.O & P.S Tupudana, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶7

..... Appellant

¶8

[in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.597 of 2019]

¶9

Rajbali Ram, aged about 62 years, son of late Jageshwar Ram, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Gali NO.10, Village – Dehrion-Sone, P.O + P.S. - Dehri-on-Sone, District Rohtas, Bihar.

¶10

..... Appellant

¶11

[in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.614 of 2019]

¶12

Versus

¶13

The Union of India through CBI ..... Respondent [in all the Cr. Appeals ]

¶14

HON'BLE MR.	PRESENT JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---------
For the Appellants	: Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, Advocate
	Mr. Vishnu Kr. Mahto, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.617 of 2019] Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.597 of 2019]
	Mr. Vivek Kr. Rai, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.614 of 2019]
For the Resp./CBI	: Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharti, Advocate ---------

¶15

Order No.20/ Dated: 08th July, 2026

¶16

1. The captioned appeals arise out of a common

¶17

- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶18

2026:JHHC:20072 judgment, hence the same have been clubbed and heard together and being disposed of with a common judgment. 2. Heard Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 3. The present appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.05.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – III -cum- Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in R.C. Case No.21(A)/ 2009(R), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 120B read with Sections 420/ 468/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short P.C Act) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Sections 420/ 468 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.20,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Sections 471 IPC and Section 120B read with Sections 420/ 468/ 471 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶19

4. The prosecution story, in short, is that the instant case was registered on 22.10.2009 under Sections 120B/ 420/ 467/ 468/471 of the IPC and Sections. 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused

¶20

- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶21

2026:JHHC:20072

¶22

persons namely, Sri Laxman Ram, the then Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department (RWD), Simdega, Shri Ashok Prasad Shah, the then Executive Engineer, RWD, Simdega, M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and unknown others on the basis of the result of Preliminary Enquiry vide P.E.-03(A)/2009(R) that was taken up by the CBI pursuant to the order of the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.803 of 2009 into the alleged large scale irregularities committed by the Engineers of the Road Construction Department (RCD) and Rural Works Department (RWD), Government of Jharkhand, contractors and other persons in the matter of purported procurement of Bitumen for construction of roads. It has been alleged that Sri Laxman Ram and Ashok Kumar Shah, the then Executive Engineers, RWD, Simdega during the period of 2004-2005, entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Classic Coal Construction Co Pvt. Ltd. and unknown others and in pursuance thereof, M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Submitted false/ bogus invoices showing procurement of bitumen for the execution of the contractual work awarded in its favour, which caused wrongful gain to the contractor and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. It has further been alleged that for the works exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, the construction materials like bitumen, cement, steel, etc. was required to be supplied by the contractors by procuring the same from Indian Oil

¶23

- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶24

2026:JHHC:20072 Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., etc. and the contractors before using such bitumen in the contractually awarded work were required to submit invoices showing procurement of bitumen and a certificate pertaining quality of the bitumen so procured. The procured materials were supposed to be allowed to put to use in construction work only after verification of quality of such materials form the department of Quality Control Unit. M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. was awarded with a contract vide Agreement No.10F2 of 2004-2005 for strengthening of Kurdeg to Kutmakachhar Road (16.9 Km.) at a contractual value of Rs.1,28,32,497.00/-. The Contractor has submitted total 30 numbers of invoices showing procurement of Bitumen, purportedly issued by HPCL, Tata, CFA, Telco, Jamshedpur but all these 30 invoices showing procurement of above bitumen covering 276.356 mt. Packed bitumen were not actually issued by HPCL, TATA, CFA, Telco, Jamshedpur and hence, the same were false and fabricated which were dishonestly and fraudulently submitted by the M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. The bitumen purportedly procured against the said false invoices were shown to have been used in the above contract awarded in favour of M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Despite, the above submitted false and fabricated invoices by the M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., the

¶25

- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶26

2026:JHHC:20072

¶27

accused being public servant, Sri Laxman Ram and Ashok Prasad Shah, the then Executive Engineers, RWD Simdega in strict abuse of their respective official position, dishonestly and fraudulently certified the bills of their contractors for payment and accordingly, the then M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. had received payment of around Rs.1,21,72,110.00/- (Rs. One Crore twenty one lacs seventy two thousand and one hundred ten only) on the basis of the false certification by these public servants and accordingly, the above case was registered and the investigation by the C.B.I.

¶28

After investigation, the C.B.I. has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons including these appellants under Sections 120B r/w 420/468/471 of the IPC. and Sections. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and the Sanction was also obtained against the above Public Servants under Secion 197 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988. During investigation, the investigating agency could not find criminality on the part of Sri Laxman Ram and Sri Ashok Prasad Shah, the then Executive Engineer and hence, they were not sent up for trial rather the said Laxman Ram was found liable for misconduct and hence, the matter was referred for Departmental Proceeding against him. During the investigation, it was surfaced that all the 30 Bitumen invoices showing procurement of 267.138 mt. Bitumen purportedly issued from HPCL, TATA, CFA were all fake and fabricated and

¶29

- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶30

2026:JHHC:20072

¶31

M/s Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. neither deposited any amount to HPCL, TATA nor lifted any quantity of bitumen from there during the period of 20042006. Thereafter, on 27.01.2011, the cognizance was also taken.

¶32

On 01.08.2017 charge under Sections 120B r/w Sections 420/468/471 of the I.P.C and Sections 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 has been framed against all the accused-appellants namely, 1. Upendra Kumar Singh, the then Assistant Engineer, R.W.D, Simdega, 2. Umesh Paswan, the then Junior Engineer, RW.D., Simdega and 3. Raj Bali Ram, the then Junior Engineer, R.W.D., Simdega

¶33

The case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

¶34

5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 17 witnesses, and their depositions, in brief, are as follows:-

¶35

6. P.W.-1, Nitish Nilesh Sanga, is the Law Officer and he has proved the Sanction Order dated 15.12.2010 against the accused issued under the signature of the Secretary -cum- L.R., Department of Law, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶36

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot tell the basis of sanction order.

¶37

7. P.W.-2, Ajay Kumar Pandey, is the Accountant of

¶38

- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶39

2026:JHHC:20072

¶40

M/S. Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. He has deposed that he has put his signature on ten invoices (Ext.2 to 2/9) but he had not received the bitumen as mentioned in the same.

¶41

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot ascertain that the invoices were forged or genuine.

¶42

8. P.W.-3, Abhinav Kumar Choudhary, is an employee of RTO, Agra. He has identified the signature of the then R.T.O, Agra on letter No.892/TR/2010 dated 04.08.2010. He has further deposed that the vehicle registration number mentioned in the said letter belongs to Lakhan Singh and vehicle type is solo (Luna Super) and its loading capacity is 65 kgs.

¶43

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has no contribution in preparation of the document.

¶44

9. P.W.-4, Rajesh Prasad, is an employee of RWD, Simdega. He has proved the signature of appellant Upendra Kumar Singh on 18 invoices (Ext.-8 to 8/17). He has stated that the bills of the contractor passes through the Office of the Executive Engineer and it is the duty of the Executive Engineer to communicate Oil Companies.

¶45

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has never worked with the accused Upender Kumar Singh. Further, the measurement book was signed by another persons.

¶46

10. P.W.-5, William Kujur , is an Executive Engineer, RWD, Simdega. He has deposed that the payment to

¶47

- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶48

2026:JHHC:20072

¶49

contractor has to be made after due verification by the office. Further, there was no provision to check invoices at the site. He categorically admitted that the bitumen was used in the construction of road as required.

¶50

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the Executive Engineer was responsible for supervision of only 10% work done. Further, the payment was made on the basis of measurement book. There was no defect in the entries in measurement book. Further in his report he has mentioned no complaint against the road work and after completion of road, the riding surface was found good and the road is being used by the local people.

¶51

11. P.W.-6, Anil Kumar Chitranshu, is also an employee of M/S. Classic Coal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. He has proved all 20 invoices (Ext.-6 to 6/19). However, he has not received the bitumen against the said invoices.

¶52

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has put signature on the invoices at the instance of Pawan Kumar Singh.

¶53

12. P.W.-7, Ram Kumar Mahto , is an Assistant Engineer, REO, Simdega. He has proved the signature of the accused on the disputed invoices, agreement, measurement book, etc. He has stated that the accounts related work is the duty of the Divisional Accounts Officer. Further, there is no provision of verification of invoices at the side of the A.E. Further, the Assistant Engineer has no

¶54

- 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶55

2026:JHHC:20072

¶56

responsibility of Notice Inviting Tender as there was no provision of check the invoices related to bitumen at the place of work by the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer rather only quantity was checked and bill was being paid after verification by the Accountant and Executive Engineer.

¶57

13. P.W.-8, Murahu Prasad , is an Executive Engineer, CPWD. He has deposed in examination-in-chief that the accurate report of quality of constructed road work can be find out within one year of completion of work. As the work has been completed four years ago, the quality cannot be tested.

¶58

This witness does not support the charge of under utilisation of bitumen.

¶59

14. P.W.-9, Gyan Prasad Lakra , was working as

¶60

Accounts Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, REO, Simdega. He has deposed that the bills were passed after matching with the measurement book and the quantity of bitumen was also as per the measurement book.

¶61

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the payment was made after full satisfaction. He has falsified the charges as ten bills were paid on the basis of measurement book and supplied bitumen. The accused was check only quantity of bitumen received. He has also admitted that the constructed road was of good quality and the local persons are using the road.

¶62

15. P.W.-10, Sunil Bose , is an Expert and Head of the

¶63

- 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶64

2026:JHHC:20072

¶65

Department, Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi. In his chief examination, he has deposed that he observed the samples and came to the conclusion that the samples were 3.5 to 7.5 years old and it is not possible to check the aggregate grading and binder content of the samples. As per the government norms, the life cycle of constructed road may be very strong 4 to 5 years in case of premix carpet and seal coat and 4 to 5 years in case of semi dense bituminous concrete depending on weather and traffic condition as well as temperature.

¶66

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the samples of bitumen was brought by the CBI officials and the same cannot be graded as it was 3.5 to 7 years old.

¶67

16. P.W.-11, Bishwanath Murmu , is the Chief manger, Operations, HPCL, Kolkata. In chief examination, he has stated that he has proved Ext.-15 – forwarding letter dated 11.112009 sent to the CBI. He has stated that the HPCL, Direct Cell, Jamshedpur Office has issued no delivery order to CCCCPL in the year 2004-2006. the dispatch order/ delivery order did not match with the records.

¶68

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not know whose role was in issuing the delivery orders and the same of the obligation of the department to sent to various departments. He did not know whether any communication has transpired by the HPCL and the Executive Engineer and any DO letter was received by the HPCL.

¶69

17. P.W.-12, Kanabala Jena , is Deputy Director and

¶70

- 10 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶71

2026:JHHC:20072

¶72

Scientist (Dociment), CFSL, Kolkata. He has proved the signatures of P.W.-2 & P.W.-6 i.e. the Employees of CCCCPL and testified the same. He has no personal knowledge about the procurement of Exts- 24 & 18.

¶73

18. P.W.-13, Subodh Prasad Baitha , is the Retd. Chief Engineer, REO, Ranchi. He has identified Letter No.586 dated 04.06.2010 (Ext.-25) sent by him to the I.O and also File No.217/04 (Ext.-26). He has stated that the Executive Engineer was the custodian of bills and invoices. He has admitted that the bitumen amount utilized cannot be assessed.

¶74

19. P.W.-14, Vijay Prakash , is an Assistant Manager, Consumer Cell at IOCL. He has stated that the delivery orders (Ext.-13/1) was not issued form his office.

¶75

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had no information regarding communication between Executive Engineer, Simdega and IOCL.

¶76

20. P.W.-15, Sanjay Kumar Palsanaya , is the Proprietor of SPG Enterprises and the COD of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In his chief examination, he has deposed that the disputed invoices (Ext.-2 to 2/9 and 6 to 6/19) were not issued from his office. He denied signature of any officials on the disputed invoices.

¶77

In cross-examination, at para – 5, he has admitted the fact that the bitumen is a free trade product since April 1998 and any person could purchase the same from the open market. He has also admitted that he cannot say how

¶78

- 11 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶79

2026:JHHC:20072

¶80

much bitumen has been supplied by his office as HPCL keeps the entire records.

¶81

21. P.W.-16, Syed Ujjair Ahmad , is an Executive Engineer, NREP, Palamau. He has deposed that he was posted as Assistant Engineer, RWD, Soil Investigation, Ranchi. He has stated that the Investigating Officer has investigated him.

¶82

In cross-examination, at para – 3, he has admitted that page No.20 of the measurement book has been checked and passed by the Executive Engineer but the signature is illegible hence he could not say the name. He has stated that in the page no.78 of the measurement book, it is mentioned that quality of construction material is good.

¶83

22. P.W.-17, Rakesh Kumar Gupta , is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has investigated the matter. During course of investigation, he has taken the statement of witnesses and seized the documents. He found that 30 disputed invoices (Ext.-2 to 2/9 and Ext.6 to 6/19) were submitted in the office.

¶84

In cross-examination, at para -7, he has stated that he did not get any complaint regarding the road from any local people. At para – 10, he has stated that during investigation he came to know that the work of the road has been done. Further, no direct evidence of conspiracy has been found, only the accused have signed the invoices with regard to lifting of the bitumen. It has is true that the

¶85

- 12 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶86

2026:JHHC:20072

¶87

payment of bills to the contractors were done on the basis of completion of work. He did not know whether the final bill was paid or not. He has mentioned less utilization of bitumen and no bitumen was procured on the charge-sheet merely on assumption. He did not investigate on the point that how much bitumen was lifted.

¶88

23. The question under Section 313 Cr.P.C was put to the accused, which suggests that the work of construction of road has been done, the only negativity has been presented by the prosecution is that the bitumen has not been purchased from the designated companies i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (Central Public Sector undertakings under the Government of India).

¶89

24. On consideration of materials available on record, the trial Court has found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 120B read with Sections 420/ 468/ 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, and sentenced them, as stated above.

¶90

25. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the accused-appellants have preferred the present appeals.

¶91

26. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:-

¶92

(i) the appellants have been roped in the present case only on the basis of conspiracy because there

¶93

- 13 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶94

2026:JHHC:20072

¶95

is no direct evidence as has been admitted by the Investigating Officer (P.W.-17) in his deposition at para - 7.

¶96

(ii) these appellants were only concerned with the receiving of the bitumen and the work of road construction, to be performed as per the specification and no complain whatsoever has been made regarding the road, rather the work has been done as per the specification.

¶97

(iii) the controller of these elements is the Executive Engineer, who has entered into an agreement (Ext.-3) and has issued the letters for procurement of bitumen, but he has been left out. He has not even been charged and these appellants, being low grade officers, who were only supposed to receive the materials and supervise the construction work, to be done as per the terms and conditions, have been made accused.

¶98

(iv) there is no evidence available on record to suggest that these appellants have gained in any way in the entire construction work.

¶99

On the above basis, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of no evidence and the conviction of the appellants is bad in law. 27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI has supported the judgment of conviction and order of

¶100

- 14 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶101

2026:JHHC:20072

¶102

sentence, stating that it is a case of conspiracy and in the case of conspiracy, the circumstantial evidence has to be seen because there is no direct evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the CBI has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1669 .

¶103

28. Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that :-

¶104

(i) the technical report, which has been signed by the appellants namely, Upendra Kumar Singh and Umesh Paswan, clearly suggests that the bitumen has to be procured from the designated companies i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).

¶105

(ii) the procurement certificate shows that the bitumen has been procured from HPCL, situated at Jamshedpur, and the evidence has come that neither any certificate has been issued nor any material has been sent by the HPCL.

¶106

(iii) the procurement order has been issued in the name of IOCL while the procurement is from HPCL.

¶107

(iv) the personal gain is not relevant, if loss is there and gain is to somebody else, even then Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, is made out.

¶108

- 15 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶109

2026:JHHC:20072

¶110

29. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :-

¶111

(i) the prosecution story starts with the fact that there was bungling in the procurement of bitumen and in the construction work, but after evidencing, the prosecution story has winnowed down to the procurement of bitumen only. It has been alleged that the bitumen has not been procured from the Govt. Companies, i.e. IOCL and HPCL, which was the terms and conditions of the contract and in this way there is wrongful loss to the Govt. company and wrongful gain to the contractor and in order to prove this :-

¶112

a). it has been shown that the invoices have been issued from the HPCL and not from the IOCL from which requisition has been made by the then Executive Engineer, but he has not been charged.

¶113

b). these appellants were not the signatories of the procurement letter and there is no material to suggests that they were aware that it was to be procured from IOCL rather they were aware as per the terms and conditions of the technical report that the procurement can be made from both the companies i.e. IOCL as well as HPCL and the procurement has been shown from HPCL.

¶114

- 16 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶115

2026:JHHC:20072

¶116

(ii) there is no material to suggest that these appellants were aware that the invoices issued were forged and fabricated, rather they have received the bitumen and accordingly it has been utilized. There is no complaint so far as quantity of bitumen received and unitized in the construction work are concerned.

¶117

(iii) The construction work of the road has been done as per the terms and conditions of the contract.

¶118

30. Thus, from the evidence available on record and the discussions, as made herein-above, it is evident that there is no material to rope these appellants on the basis of conspiracy in the present case, as because there is no evidence and there is no material available so far as the conspiracy is concerned and it has also been admitted by the Investigating Officer and as such, the judgment of conviction is bad in law. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.05.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – III -cum- Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in R.C. Case No.21(A)/ 2009(R) is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶119

31. In the result, the appeals stand allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶120

32. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond.

¶121

- 17 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶122

2026:JHHC:20072

¶123

33. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

¶124

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)