TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1451 of Axis Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, Arraji No.1999/3, 200/2, Myauja Tulssipur, Mahmoorganj, Varanasi has been confirmed vide the Impugned Order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the Impugned Order on the grounds that it has been mechanically passed without any application of mind and hence, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. Ld. Counsel has contended that the dispute, if any, is of purely contractual civil nature and therefore beyond the scope and ambit of the PMLA. Ld. Counsel has cited the Master License Agreement entered into between the Indian Railways and the Appellant, whereby Article 20 provides for Dispute Resolution. Ld. Counsel cited the Commercial Circulars issued by the Ministry of Railways, which provided for procurement and supply of Packaged Drinking Water (PDW) for Indian Railways. In particular, he pointed out that the Circular No. 53/2001 dated 23.08.2001 did not prevent the Licensee from serving any other brand of PDW, in case the brand of Rail Neer of IRCTC was not available. He went on to state that the Commercial Circular No. 15/2003 dated 11.03.2003 provided that Rail Neer shall be exclusive brand of PDW to be procured and sold by P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore pleaded to allow the Appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate stated that a joint surprise was conducted by CBI on 22.08.2014 in Rajdhani/Shatabdi Trains at different locations. It was found that the Private Licensee were supplying PDW of other brands, in place of Rail Neer. Thereby causing loss to the Government Exchequer as the cost of PDW of other brands was less than that of Rail Neer. Ld. Counsel stated that paragraph 1.3.4 of the agreement stipulates that, "It is mandatory that the Licensee shall sell or, as the case may be, distribute/serve Rail Neer to the passengers on board in such quantities and at rates as may be prescribed by Railway from time to time. The Licensee shall be responsible for storing, cooling and distribution of Rail Neer to the train passengers. In case of non- availability/inadequate supply of Rail Neer by Railway/ IRCTC, the Licensee shall be permitted to sell PDW of brands approved by Railway, for which the Licensee is bound to take prior approval of Railway in writing." Ld. Counsel further informed that the CBI registered FIR on 14.10.2015. The Respondent Directorate registered ECIR/22/DZLO/ 2016 on 04.02.2016 for offences under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undue pecuniary gain to themselves as they claimed reimbursement for Rail Neer PDW which they allegedly did not supply in Rajdhani/Shatabdi trains. Upon conclusion of investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against two public servants and various licensees (caterers). xxxxx 13. This order was challenged in CBI v. Sandeep Silas [CBI v. Sandeep Silas, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 28717 of 2020, order dated 19-03-2021 (SC)] which was dismissed on account of delay, hence the order of the Coordinate Bench stands till date. xxxxx 16. It was argued once sanction qua the government officials is declined, the CBI cannot pursue its case against private person since the case was initially based upon conspiracy of private licensees with the government officials and once it is held the government officials were not in conspiracy and the fact no loss was ever caused to the Railways, the CBI cannot espouse cause of complainant, an Inspector and a Superintendent of CBI, who despite the decline to accord sanction by various senior authorities of the Government are yet a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g) that he should impress upon the licensees to pick up Rail Neer as everyday approximately 3000 cartons were not being lifted I picked up by the licensees of Rajdhani and Shatabdi Trains, therefore, more than one lakh cartons of Rail Neer have accumulated in Rail Neer Plant, Nangloi causing huge inventory lock up and revenue loss. The perusal of the letter dated 6-3-2013 reveals that Sh. M.S. Chalia, the then CCM (catering) has received the said letter and made the initials on it. Thus, it is very clear that the issue of not picking up of Rail Neer by these licensees was well within the knowledge of Sh. M.S. Chalia. ∗∗∗ Investigation has revealed that during the period 1-1- 2013 to 31-12-2014 the licensee caterers has claimed total amount of Rs. 34,69,27,117 from Northern Railway for 23 trains controlled by the Northern Railway. The details of licensees and trains are mentioned below in a chart- ∗∗∗ Therefore, total loss to railway during 2013-2014 = Rs. 34,69,27,117 (total claimed from railway) - Rs. 15,13,88,100 (actual claim for Rail Neer) = Rs. 19,55,39,017 (rupees ninteen crores fifty-five lakhs thirty-nine tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viz. at the price of Rail Neer, from railways whereas the PDW supplied in train was of a cheaper brand and thus loss calculated to the government exchequer was about Rs. 19,55,39,017. Admittedly, sanction was not given by the competent authority for reasons best suited to them but there is no denial of the fact the loss was caused to public exchequer. xxxxx 36. The allegations of conspiracy in the charge-sheet have two facets viz. the conspiracy of contractors to dupe/cheat the railway by charging them for Rail Neer on supplying cheaper PDW. The second facet of conspiracy involves public servants against whom sanction has not been received. Now the conspiracy of the petitioners can be proved/disproved only after a trial. The matter of sanction qua public servant would have no effect upon allegations of conspiracy and alleged cheating by private accused and the only effect would be Section 120-BIPC would now not be used to prosecute private individuals for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Merely because the sanction is not granted does not mean the findings qua conspiracy/cheating cannot stand trial. Rather in CBI v. Jitender Kumar Singh [CBI v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Ministry of Railways, Government of India noting a loss of Rs. 19.50 crores approx has been caused to the Railways; and no notice was ever given to Railways for short supply of bottles; and lastly considering the order of cognizance of learned Special Judge dated 1-7-2017 wherein he has noted the punitive action by the Railways was never taken for reasons best known to them, cannot be ignored at this stage. 37. In view of overall submissions and case laws stated above, no case is made out for quashing of FIR at this stage. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of." 6. In view of the Judgment (supra) in the matter of the Appellant passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the arguments made by the Appellant cannot be accepted. Another argument made by the Appellants that no loss was incurred by the Ministry of Railways also cannot survive, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraph 36 of the Judgment (supra). The Appellant has also quoted a number of Circulars issued by the Ministry of Railways. It has been observed in the Judgment (supra) that the Appellant was mandated to supply only Rai....