R.L. Khurana, J.@mdashThe present appeal has been directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh assailing the acquittal of the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) as recorded by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Shimla vide judgment dated 7.9.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 15-S/7 of 1997/96.
2. During the relevant period, that isin 1989-90, accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra, was the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. Accused Dr. O.P. Sharma was the Deputy Director, Health Services while accused S.N. Sharma was Assistant Drugs Controller. Accused Ranjan Banga and Suresh Sood are the Partners of the Firm Messers Rennice Drug House, Solan. Accused Umesh Sanghi was the Managing Director of Messrs Hindustan Trust Private Limited, New Delhi and accused R.S. Arora was the Managing Director of Messrs Indus Pharma Private Limited, New Delhi. Accused Vinod Kumar was the Managing Director of Messrs Krishan Chand and Sons, Delhi.
3. Sometime in the year 1989, the State Government intended to purchase a large number of Allopathic Drugs Kits for use in its various hospitals in the State. For this purpose tenders were invited by the Controller of Stores, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Tenders were submitted by a large number of manufacturers and/or suppliers of allopathic medicines. Tenders of Messrs Rennice Drug House, Solan of which the accused Ranjan Banga and Suresh Sood are partners, and that of Messrs Panacea Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Jassoor, District Kangra were accepted. Both these firms were, therefore e, awarded the contract to supply the kits at the approved rates. The kits were to be purchased through the Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. As per the terms of the rate contract, a team of experts was to inspect the kits to be supplied befor e its despatch. A team comprising of accused Dr. O.P Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma was constituted. After obtaining the necessary administrative sanction/approval from the State Government, the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotrain the capacity of being the Director Health Services, placed two orders with Messrs Rennice Drug House, respectively, on 28.12.1989 and 19.3.1990. Each of such supply order was for the supply of 490 kits. Both these supplies were to be made to the Chief Medical Officer, Mandifor distribution amongst various health centres in Mandi District.
4. Each kit to be supplied was to contain 30 medicines and other medical items like bandages, cotton wool etc., of different kinds. The medicines and other medical items contained in the kit were manufactured/supplied to Messrs Rennice Drug House, Solan, by Messrs Hindustan Trust Private Limited, New Delhi, Messrs Indus Pharma Private Limited, New Delhi and Messrs Krishan Chand and Sons, Delhi.
5. When the first consignment of kits was ready for despatch, the team of experts comprising of accused Dr. O.P. Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma on 24.3.1990 visited the premises of Messrs Rennice Drug House at Solan for inspection. After carrying out the necessary inspection, they submitted their report on the same day to the Director of Health Services. Thereafter a consignment of 490 kits was sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi. Such consignment, it is alleged, was not accompanied by the certificate of analysis, though it was a condition of the rate contract that each consignment of kits would be accompanied by such a certificate. It is alleged that inspite of the fact that the said condition of the rate contract had not been complied with, the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra in his capacity as Director of Health Services released the payment representing the cost of 490 kits supplied by Messrs Rennice Drug House.
6. Shri Navneet Marwah, Drug Inspector, Mandi, on 11.4.1990 and 24.4.1990 took twenty eight samples of medicines and other medical items out of four kits. All such samples were sent to Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh, who was also notified as Public Analyst for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Vide report dated 23.4.1990, out of the twenty eight samples sent for analysis, six samples were found to be not confor ming to the prescribed standard. The sample of medicines /medical items, which did not confor m to the prescribed standard were as follows:
Sr. No. Name of medicine /medical item Manufactured by
__________________________________________________________________________________
1. Prochlorperazine tablets Hindustan Trust Private
Limited, New Delhi
2. Rolled bandage Krishan Chand and Sons,
Delhi
3. Electrox Hindustan Trust Private
Ltd., New Delhi
4. Tablet LP.-do-
5. Vitamin B-Complex -do-
6. Sulphadimine Tablets -do-
___________________________________________________________________________________
7. On the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Drug Inspector, Mandi, approached the Medical Officer (Health) Mandi, who was the Incharge of the store to furnish the names and other particulars of the suppliers/manufacturers of the medicines found to be of not prescribed standard so that action under Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 could be initiated against them. The Medical Officer (Health) Mandiin turn wrote to the Chief Medical Officer, Mandifor supplying the necessary infor mation to the Drug Inspector. The Chief Medical Officer, Mandiin turn wrote to the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra to supply the necessary particulars to the Drug Inspector, Mandi, as desired by him since the order for supply of kits was placed by and that the invoice regarding supply of kits had _ already been sent to the Director Health Services. No action was taken by Dr. C.L. Malhotra in the matter inspite of having been repeatedly reminded in this regard by the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi. As a result, no action could be taken by the Drug Inspector against the suppliers/ manufacturers of the medicines which were found not confor ming to the prescribed standard.
8. While the matter rested there, the second consignment of 490 kits, ordered to be supplied vide order dated 19.3.1990, was ready for being supplied. The team of experts, constituted for the purpose, com-prising of accused Dr. O.P. Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma, on 21.9.1990 visited the premises of Messrs Rennice Drug House at Solan and after carrying out the inspection of the consignment submitted the report to the Director Health Services. Messrs Rennice Drug House on the same day despatched the consignment to Chief Medical Officer, Mandi. The payment of Rs. 5,83,178 representing the price of such consignment was released in favour of the supplier Messrs Rennice Drug House, Solan, by accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra on 17.10.1990. This consignment also did not accompany any certificate of analysis. The payment for the second consignment was released by accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra inspite of the fact that it had been brought to his notice that some of the medicines in the kits supplied earlier were sub-standard. No verification of the quality of the medicines and other medical items in the kits of second consign ment was even got carried out by him.
9. According to the prosecution, the value of the medicines and other medical items found sub-standard was Rs. 1,60,690. It is alleged that the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra in connivance with accused Dr. O.P. Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma, and other accused who are the suppliers/ manufacturers of the sub-standard medicines have caused lawful gain to themselves and thereby have caused undue loss to the State exchequer.
10. A case came to be registered with the Anti-Corrurjtion Zone, Mandi. It was investigated and inquired into by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Mandi. After completion of investigation and after obtaining the requisite sanction for the prosecution of accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra, Dr, O.P. Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma, all the accused were sent up for trial.
11. All the eight accused were charged to stand trial for the offences as under:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Name of accused Offences charged
_______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Dr. C.L. Malhotra (a) Section 120B Indian Penal Code read
2. Dr. O.P. Sharmawith Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
3. Sh. S.N. Sharma Corruption Act and Section 22 of H.P.
Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983;
(b)Section 420 read with Section 120B
Indian Penal Code;
(c)Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987.
(d)Section 22, H.P. Prevention of Co-
rrupt Practices Act, 1983.
4. Ranjan Banga (a)Section 120B India Penal Code, read
5. Suresh Sood with Section 13(2) Prevention of Cor-
6. Umesh Sanghi rup Section 22, H.P. Pre
7. R.S. Arora vention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983;
8. Vinod Kumar (b)Section 420 read with Section 120B
Indian Penal Code.
12. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
13. The prosecution in support of its case examined eighteen witnesses in all besides placing a number of documents on the record.
14. All the accused in their respective statements recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the existence of a conspiracy or that unlawful and wrongful gains have been secured by them by causing loss to the State exchequer. One witness has been examined in defence.
15. The learned/Special Judge upon consideration of the material placed befor e him came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the offences against the accused. He, accordingly, vide judgment dated 7.9.1998 acquitted all the accused of the offences charged against them.
16. The first and for emost charge against the accused is that of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B, Indian Penal Code. In support of such charge, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances said to be appearing in evidence against the accused:
(a) As per terms of the rate contract the kits were required to be supplied within two months of the placing of the order by the Director Health Services, but the inspection team even did not arrange to carry out the inspection within two months period limited for supply of kits and Doctor C.L. Malhotra also did not insist for the timely supply of the kits;
(b) The inspection team favored the supplier of kits by clearing the despatch of consignments of kits without carrying out thorough inspection, with the result that some sub-standard medicinesfor ming part of the kits, got supplied to the Government;
(c) It was one of the conditions of the rate contract that the kits were to be accompanied by certificates of Analysis, but the kits that were supplied to the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi, under the orders of Doctor C.L. Malhotra, had no such certificates with them and inspite of that Doctor C.L. Malhotra released the payment of price of such kits, which was a hefty amount of Rs. 11,66,356.
(d) When the Government Analyst reported that six of the 30 items contained in the kits were sub-standard and this fact had been brought to the notice of the Director Health Services by Chief Medical Officer, Mandi, he did not write to the Controller of Stores or to the Government to blacklist Rennice Drug House, Solan nor did he take any steps to recover the price of the adulterated drugs from the said firm, rather he released the payment of the price of the second consignment of kits in hot haste;
(e) Doctor C.L. Malhotra did not supply the particulars of the supplier/manufacturers of the medicines to the Drugs Inspector Mandi inspite of having been asked by the Chief Medical Officer to do so with the result that the Drugs Inspector, Mandi could not initiate the prosecution of the suppliers/manufacturers of sub-standard medicines;
(f) Doctor C.L. Malhotra did not issue any instructions td the Inspection team befor e the team inspected the second consignment of the kits to get the contents analysed at Laboratory inspite of his having come to know by then that some of the medicines contained in the kits supplied earlier, were sub-standard;
(g) Rennice Drug House did not replace the sub-standard medicines/other medical items, nor did Doctor C.L. Malhotra insist on the same befor e releasing the payment of the second consignment of kits.
17. It is well established principle of law that where the inference of guilt of an accused person is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, only those circumstances mustin the first place, be congently established. Further, these circumstances should be a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and in their totality must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the offence was committed by the accused and none else. (See:
18. The Supreme Court
It is well settled that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must satisfy three conditions: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances, should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused,;
(iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should for m a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
19. The Supreme Court further sounded a word of caution that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established dearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of inno9ence of the accused.
20. In
21. Bearing the above principles in mind, is court proceeds to consider each of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in seeking the conviction of each of the eight accused for the offences charged against them.
Circumstance (a)
22. Ex. PF/3 is the copy of the rate contract which was awarded in favour of Messrs Rennice Drug House, Solan, by the Controller of Stores with regard to the supply of medical kits. Clause 8 of such rate contract provides:
The delivery of the material will be made within two months from the date of receipt of the supply order.
23. It is the admitted case of the parties that the first supply order in respect of 490 kits is dated 28.12.1989 (Ex. PL/2). Against this supply order 490 kits were supplied by the supplier Messrs Rennice Drug House, Solan on 24.3.1990 after the consignment was inspected by the team of experts on the same day. The second supply order (Ex. PL/3) is dated 19.3.1990 regarding another 490 kits. This consignment was despatched on 21.9.1990 by the supplier Messrs Rennice Drug House. The value of each consignment was Rs. 5,83,178.
24. Nothing has come on the record to show as to when the above mentioned two supply orders were in fact received by the supplier Messrs Rennice Drug House. The time prescribed for supply was to be reckoned from the date of the receipt of the supply orders and not from the date of the supply orders. In order to press this circumstance into service against the accused, the prosecution was obliged to prove and establish the date on which the supply orders Ex. PL/2 and Ex. PL/3 were actually received by the supplier Messrs Rennice Drug House, Solan. So much so that even the dates on which these supply orders were in fact despatched by the office of the Director, Health Services have not been proved.
25. Even if for the sake of arguments, it be taken that the supplies were made late and beyond the period stipulated in the rate contract, there is nothing in the rate contract that such supplies were not to be accepted. Ex. PF/4, which is "Schedule-C" to the rate contract, lays down further terms and conditions of the rate contract, Clause 6 thereof provides:
Supply of the goods shall have to be made according to the delivery period specified in Schedule ''A'' failing which this office will effect purchases at your sole risk from other sources and the excess costs to be incurred over and above the rate contract will be recovered from you by deduction from your pending bills. The amount of security/earnest money will also be for feited to the account of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In addition to the above the Controller of Istores reserves the right to impose any penalty in terms and. conditions of the agreement.
26. Under the above clause, action if anyin case of non-supply of goods within the stipulated period was required to be taken by the Controller of Stores, Government of Himachal Pradesh, and not by accused Dr. C.L.
Malhotra in his capacity of being the Director of Health Services. therefore e, no fault can be found in this regard insofar as the accused are concerned. Nor the late supply of kits points out to any conspiracy on the part of the accused. The circumstances, therefore e, has been rightly ignored by the learned Special Judge.
Circumstance (b):
27. Admittedly, a team of experts comprising of accused Dr. O.P. Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma was nominated to carry out the inspection of the consignments befor e their actual despatch. It is also admitted case that inspections of both the consignments were carried out by these two accused.
28. Clause 4 of the rate contract Ex. PF/3 provides that each consignment will be inspected befor e the despatch by the consignee or his authorised representative.
29. The purpose of inspection appears to be to ensure that each kit contained the requisite medicines and/or the medical items. The purpose was not to draw samples for analysis. Clause (7) of the rate contract Ex. PF/3 provides that every batch of medicines must be accompanied by a certificate of analysis to be supplied along with the kits. In view of the said condition, the team of experts were not required to draw the samples. Their failure to draw the samples is not indicative of a conspiracy.
30. There is yet another aspect of the case. Clause (5) of the rate contract Ex. PF/3 further provides:
On the receipt of supplies, the DDO''s or any other officer authorised by the Controller of Stores, H.P. mil draw random sample from each consignment for laboratory analysis of the medicines. The cost of laboratory analysis testing fee shall be borne by the Government. If the samples of medicines supplied by the Contractor are found to be sub-standard, the necessary action against the suppliers shall be taken by the Controller of Stores, which may include withholding of future payment, recovery of the cost of the consignment already paid, black listing/debarring the unit from H.P. Store Purchase Programmefor feature of security and prosecution for supplying sub-standard medicines, under the law.
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Under the above clause, the duty to draw random samples from the consignment was that of either the DDO''s or the Officer authorised in this behalf by the Controller of Stores. Such samples could be drawn only after the supplies are received. Admittedly, neither of the members of the inspecting party was either the DDO or had been specifically empowered by the Controller of Stores to draw the sample.
32. There is evidence in the for m of a circular letter dated 2.3.1990 (Ex. PM/3)) addressed to all the Chief Medical Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh by the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra advising them that as per the terms of the rate contract, random sample may be got drawn from each consignment by the Drug Inspector for laboratory analysis. It appears that it was in response to and compliance of this letter that certain samples were drawn by the Drug Inspector, Mandi.
33. On some of the medicines/medical items having been found to be sub-standard, action under Clause (5), quoted above, was to be taken only by the Controller of Stores and not by Dr. C.L. Malhotra in his capacity of being the Director of Health Services.
34. Reference may be made to Ex. DA, which is the copy of the letter addressed by accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra to the Controller of Stores on 11.6.1990. A copy of this letter was also addressed to Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. No action is shown to have been taken by either the Controller of Stores or the Secretary (Health) on this letter. Since the concerned authorities failed to take action in the matter, no fault can be attributed to the accused. The learned Special Judge has rightly not considered these alleged circumstances against the accused.
Circumstance (c):
35. Though, as pointed out above while dealing with circumstance (b) that Clause (7) of the rate contract Ex. PF/3 required that each consignment was to be accompanied by a certificate of analysis in respect of every medicine contained in the kits, this circumstance has not been proved on the record by the prosecution. There is nothing on the record to suggest that a certificate of analysis did not accompany the consignment. On the other hand, the evidence of the prosecution itself shows that such a certificate of analysis was supplied by the Supplier Messrs. Rennice Drug House, Solan.
36. Ex. PF/5 is the copy of inspection report dated 24.3.1990 submitted by accused Dr. O.P. Sharma and Shri S.N. Sharma after carrying out the inspection of the first consignment of kits. Para 6(4) of this report records:
Analysis reports for the fresh batches have been retained in the Directorate.
37. Similarlyin the inspection report Ex. PE dated 21.9.199 with regard to the inspection of second consignment, it is recorded in para 6(4) thereof that analysis reports of all batches of drugs being of standard quality have been retained in the Directorate.
38. The above mentioned part of the reports clearly indicates that the consignment was accompanied by the reports of analysis, which were retained in the Directorate of Health Services. No evidence has been led to show that the above part of the report is false and that in fact no certificates/reports of analysis were received.
39. This circumstance has also been rightly ignored by the learned Special Judge.
Circumstance (d):
40. This circumstance, on the basis of evidence coming on record, stands belied.
41. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra even after he was apprised of the fact that six items of medicine and medical items contained in the kit were found sub-standard, took no action against the supplier Messrs. Rennice Drug House. He even failed to infor m the Controller of Stores so that suitable action could have been taken against the said supplier.
42. It has come in evidence that even befor e the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra was infor med by the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi, that some samples drawn from the kits were found to be sub-standard, on the basis of some news item appearing in the press on 6.6.1990 and 9.6.1990 about some bungling in the supply of medicines, the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra in his capacity of being the Director, Health Services had addressed a letter on 11.6.1990, copy of which is Ex. DAin the matter. A copy of such letter was also endorsed to Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra on the same day, that is, on 11.6.1990 on the basis of the news item also addressed a letter (Ex. PE) to the Drug Inspector, calling for the following infor mation:
(i) When were the samples drawn, from where these were drawn and how many samples were drawn from the kits;
(ii) when were the samples sent to the Analyst, where were the samples sent and who carried the samples;
(iii) when were the analyst reports received and what were the reports of the analysis;
(iv) why were the results/reports not brought to his notice.
43. The report on the above points was called for to be submitted within five days. A copy of this letter also was endorsed to Secretary (Health).
44. Nothing has come on the record to show as to what action was taken by the Secretary (Health), Controller of Stores and the Drug Inspector on letters Ex. DA and DE.
45. A perusal of letter Ex. DA further shows that a copy of the same was also endorsed to Superintendent, Med. Ill branch of the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare with a specific direction that payments of Messrs. Rennice Drugs House, Solan and Messrs. Panacea Pharmaceuticals and Drugs, Raja-ka-bagh, District Kangra may not be released.
46. There is no dispute that the payment in respect of first consignment was released by the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare on 31.3.1990 while the payment in respect of the second consignment was released to the supplier Messrs. Rennice Drugs House, Solan, on 17.10.1990.
47. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra in his capacity of being the Director, Health Services, was not exercising the powers of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Such powers were being exercised by one Dr. (Mrs.) Ntrmal Sachdeva, the then Assistant Director. The payment in respect of both the consignment was made by such Assistant Director. The payment in respect of second consignment on 17.10.1990 was made by the Assistant Director inspite of clear directions of the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra in his letter dated 11.6.1990 Ex. DA. There is nothing on the record to show that the payments (made to the supplier Messrs. Rennice Drugs House, at the instance of or under the orders of the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra. Nor there is any evidence to show that the payment in respect of second consignment was made to the knowledge of the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra. Since the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra had already directed the withholding of payment to Messrs. Rennice Drugs House, there was no occasion for him to initiate separate action for the recovery of the cost of sub-standard medicines from the supplier. Such price could have been recovered had the matter been put up to him when the payment in respect of the second consignment was released by the office. In fact the concerned Superintendent and the Drawing and Disbursing Officer are to be blamed. It is not the case of the prosecution that such Superintendent and the Drawing and Disbursing Officer were also co-conspiratOrs.
48. The circumstance not having been proved, has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Special Judge.
Circumstance (e):
49. This circumstance also has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts.
50. Ex. P6/1 to P6/9 are the memos prepared by the Drug Inspector at the time of drawing of samples from four kits at Mandi. A perusal of the same shows that the names of the supplier as well as that of the manufacturers of medicines are mentioned therein. Similarly, such names are also mentioned in Ex. P6/10 to P6/37, the for warding letters vide which the samples were sent to the Analyst for analysis. therefore e, the Drug Inspector was having the knowledge of the names and other particulars of the supplier and the manufacturers of the medicines. Then why he was seeking such infor mation from the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi. On the basis of the reports of Analysis whereby certain medicines/medical items were found sub-standard, the Drug Inspector could have easily launched prosecution against the supplier and the manufacturers. On his failure to do so, no blame can be put on accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra.
51. Besides, though letters are shown to have been addressed to accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra by the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi asking for the necessary particulars as desired by the Drug Inspector, no evidence is for thcoming to show that such letters on having been received in the Directorate were in fact placed befor e the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra by the concerned official(s).
52. PW 1 Shiv Dutt Sharma, a Superintendent in the office of the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, has deposed:
The entire Dak received from out stations used to be received by the P.A. to D.H.S. and out of that Dak important communications used to be put up befor e the DHS by the P.A. himself and the Dak which was not significant used to be sent to the concerned branches without showing them to the DHS. This used to be the job of P.A. to determine whether any communication was important enough for being put up directly to the Director Health Services or not.
53. The concerned P.A. to the Director Health Services has not been examined to show if the letters received from the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi, were in fact placed befor e the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra at any time and if so, what directions were passed thereon by him.
54. The circumstance, therefore e, has rightly been ignored by the learned Special Judge.
Circumstance (f):
55. It was not a requirement under the terms of the rate contract Ex. PF/3 for the inspection team to draw .samples from the consignment. The requirement with regard to drawing of samples was only after the consignment is received. While discussing circumstance (b) above, it has been observed that the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra had issued necessary instructions to all the Chief Medical Officers in the State vide his letter Ex. PM/30 that random samples from the consignment be drawn for the purpose of analysis. therefore e, the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra had done whatever was expected of him in his capacity as Director Health Services. He had even directed the stoppage of payments to the supplier. This circumstance also has rightly not pressed into service against the accused by the learned Special Judge.
Circumstance (g):
56. The evidence coming on the record comprising of letters Ex. PM/2, PM/11, PM/21, PM/25 and PM/27, brought on the record by the prosecution itself, shows that not only the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi but the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra also has been writing to the suppliers for the replacement of sub-standard medicines. It also appears from the evidence that the manufacturers on having been approached by the supplier Messrs. Rennice Drugs House, Solanfor replacement of medicines, had refused to replace the medicines on the ground that they wanted to get the second part of the samples analysed from the Central Laboratory, Calcutta and also for the reason that the matter was sub judice since certain prosecutions were reported to have been launched against them in respect of some other supplies.
57. Since the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra has been writing to the supplier for replacement of medicines found to be sub-standard and the payment in respect of second consignment was not made by him or under his directions, which payment has been proved to have been made by the Assistant Director Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmal Sachdeva inspite of clear directions of the accused Dr. C.L. Malhotra stopping payments to the supplier, the circumstance has been rightly held not to have been proved.
58. On the basis of the evidence coming on the record the learned Special Judge has rightly concluded that the charge of conspiracy has not been established against the accused.
59. The above mentioned circumstances have also been pressed into service by the prosecution to prove other offences against the accused. For the self same reasons, as pointed out above, the other offences are not proved against the accused. Even otherwise, no specific evidence has come on the record against any of the accused in respect of the offences for which they stand charged.
60. All the accused stand rightly acquitted by the learned Special Judge. Such acquittal does not call for any interference.
61. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and discharged.
