The Madras High Court has refused to quash a criminal case booked against six public servants accused of having recommended purchase of 66 tonnes of ‘manifold’ paper, a lightweight paper used with carbon paper in typewriters to produce multiple copies, in 2006 though the requirement of various government departments in that year was only around 6.5 tonnes.
Justice G. Jayachandran dismissed the individual quash petitions filed by the six accused – K. Sampath Kumar, G. Ragupathy, N. Manickam, M.R. Sridharan, D. Raguraman and Srinivasan – by way of a common order and held that the case pending against them before a Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases had to be tried as a prima facie case has been made out.
The judge pointed out that the petitioners had not disputed that they were members of the Forecast Committee which had made the recommendation for purchase of the manifold paper. Though the indent placed by various government departments worked out to only 6.5 tonnes, the committee had recommended purchase of a whopping amount of 66 tonnes of manifold paper.
He also said that the alleged offence had come to light only due to efforts taken by A. Sugumaran, a retired official of the Stationery and Printing Department, who knocked at the doors of the court repeatedly to order registration of a case against the officials concerned for such mass procurement of manifold paper. It was only after that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) booked the members of the Forecast Committee on whose recommendation the Purchase Committee comprising various IAS officials called for tenders and bought 66 tonnes of manifold paper that had to be used till 2009.
Though the petitioners claimed that they had made such a recommendation only in view of purchase of new typewriters for various departments, the DVAC contended before the court that there was no necessity for such a huge procurement in 2006 since most of the government departments had been computerised.
Further, the judge rejected the argument of the petitioners that the entire consignment purchased in 2006 was used by the government in full by 2009, and therefore, the petitioners could not be prosecuted since no loss had been caused.
