LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Contradiction in charge sheet

(Querist) 17 June 2013 This query is : Resolved 
In a specific case the charge sheet says that out of 496 MT of Bitumen supplied the Goverment received only 160 MT and hence the Govenment was defrauded of 336 MT of Bitumen. The same charge sheet goes on to say that the suppliers raised a bill of only 191 MT on the Government for the Bitumen supplied. The charge sheet does not confirm the amount paid by the government. Logically if a bill of 191 MT was raised and 161 supplied the government could have been defrauded to a maximum of 31 MT. Please let me know how this anamoly will affect the case. Thanks.
Guest (Expert) 17 June 2013
Mr. Ahmed,

There may be contradiction, as per your own interpretation, but may not be correct, as all that depends upon the contents of the charge sheet.

In fact, you are trying to seek information hust by reading between the lines of the case without providing any background of the case and also stating, whether the case is against the contractor company or an employee of any organisation.

At first, the question arises, as a chief manager, in what way you are related with the case/ charge sheet?

Secondly, even if you are related to the case, whether you are asking question as a Government employee or an employee of the contractor company?

Thirdly, What was th deadline for supply of the total quantity of the bitumen?

Fourthly, whether the bill was raised as a running bill for part supply or as a final bill for the intended total supply, with the intention not to supply the balance of the contracted demand?
F K AHMED (Querist) 17 June 2013
Dear Mr Dhingra, Many thanks for the prompt reply. I am an accused in the said case and am preparing to file a discharge. The CBI had sought sanction to prosecute BPCL Officers and the sanction was denied. The staff was later exonerated in a domestic Enquiry. I am thus going through the Charge sheet to find out the points which should be included in the discharge petition. Regards
Guest (Expert) 17 June 2013
Mr. Ahmed,

Thanks for your partial clarification, but clarification about 2nd, 3rd and 4th points are still wanting. Some more questions have also cropped up with your clarification, i.e about the status of payment of the bill, signatory of the bill, company's status, etc.

Anyway, being a CBI case, it needs cautious dealing with the case at your level and reply to any casual query may not help, as detailed examination of the charge sheet would be necessary for analysis and evaluation of the charge for proper advice.
Advocate Deepak Gupta (Expert) 17 June 2013
Contradiction in charge sheet is matter of evidence . At the time framing charge , court only look prima facie , contradiction raised by you is matter of evidence .
F K AHMED (Querist) 17 June 2013
Dear Mr Gupta,
I thank you for your interest. My only submission is that if all the statements of the charge sheet are considered then the Govt has made payment of 190 MT and received 160 MT (both figures given in the charge sheet) thus the loss should be 30 MT and not 340 MT as alleged in the charge shhet. The evidence can only corraborate the numbers. You may like to reconsider your view. Regards
F K AHMED (Querist) 19 June 2013
Dear Sir,
I will be very happy to receive your views.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 19 June 2013
The gramitical error occurred in the charge-sheet can be corrected even by the court but the accused cannot take benefit of this lapse.

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query