# Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr Revisionists v. C.B.I

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1745
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-pratap-singh-anr-revisionists-v-c-b-i-54623
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120-B & 420 - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(d),
13(2) - Discharge - Scope - Subletting
of Government contract by public sector
company through pre-tender tie-up -
Allegation of conspiracy causing loss to
public exchequer - Plea that no person
cheated and offence compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. - Held, cheating of
Government constitutes offence under
Section 420 IPC as 'St.' falls within
definition of 'person' under Section 11 IPC
- Charge not speculative merely because
exact loss not quantified - Offences under
Sections 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d), 13(2)
PC Act non-compoundable - No ground
for discharge - Revisions dismissed.
(Paras 27, 28, 32, 37, 39 and 41)

HELD:
The second submission of the learned counsel
for the revisionists is the amount of losses has
not been quantified and the charge is merely
speculative. When it is apparent from the
material
available
on
record
that
the
Government had awarded the contract to NPCC
for Rs.14,60,62,604/-, NPCC sublet the contract
to UCC for Rs.13.82 crores and UCC further
sublet the contract to Sat Sai Earth Works
Rs.7.16 crores i.e. almost half the amount of
contract value of NPCC and the contract has
been awarded without following the usual
process of inviting tenders so as to ensure
availability of best rates, prima facie a case of
causing wrongful loss to the Public Exchequer is
1746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made out which needs to be tried by the trial
Court. (Para 28)

Definition of the word 'person' given in Section
11 of the Penal Code is wide enough to include
any association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not. It would certainly include
within its ambit the St. Government, which is a
body of persons. If the accused persons have
deceived the Government by fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing it to enter into a contract
with NPCC, which contract was first sub-let to
UCC and thereafter it was further sub-let to M/s
Sat Sai Earth Works at almost half of the
contract value and thereby an excessive amount
was paid to NPCC, which act has caused
financial loss to the Government, the accused
persons
have
committed
the
offence
of
cheating. If any person was involved in the
criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of
cheating, he is liable to be prosecuted.
Therefore, I find no force in the aforesaid
submission of the learned Counsel for the
revisionist. (Para 32)

The revisionist has been charged for commission
of the offence of criminal conspiracy for
committing
the
offence
punishable
under
Section 420 I.P.C. The revisionist has also been
charged for commission of offences under
Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, which offences are also
non-compoundable offences. Therefore, the
aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for
the revisionist is misconceived. (Para 37)

When the offences under Section 120-B I.P.C.
and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not
compoundable offences, the alleged lack of
opportunity of compounding for want of any
natural person having been cheated, with whose
consent
the
offence
could
have
been
compounded, does not make out a ground for
quashing of the criminal proceedings. (Para 39)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Pravat Chandra Mohanty Vs St. of Odisha,
(2021) 3 SCC 529

## Text

5 All. Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
1745
55. We are constrained to observe
that learned court below has completely
erred in overlooking such vital facts. Its
finding
recorded
in
the
order
of
conviction perhaps are persuaded by
presumptions and conjunctures but are
not based on credible evidence led at the
trial. Such a finding recorded by the
learned court below may remain to be
categorized as perverse and wholly
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

56.
Consequently,
the
appeal
succeeds and is allowed.

57. The judgment and order dated
30.09.2024 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court- II, Court
No.24, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Case
No.762 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Sukhlal),
arising out of Case Crime No.47 of 2023,
under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police
Station- Sindhauli, District- Shahjahanpur,
is hereby set aside.

58. The appellant is acquitted of
the charges for lack of evidence led by the
prosecution. Since the appellant-Sukh Lal
is in jail. He be released forthwith subject
to the condition that he is not wanted in any
other case and subject to compliance of
Section 437A Cr.P.C.

59. Let the trial court record along
with a copy of this order be transmitted to
the court concerned through Registrar
(Compliance) forthwith and a copy of this
order may also be sent to the Jail
authorities concerned.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1745
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2025
And
Criminal Revision No. 479 of 2025

Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr....Revisionists
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120-B & 420 - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(d),
13(2) - Discharge - Scope - Subletting
of Government contract by public sector
company through pre-tender tie-up -
Allegation of conspiracy causing loss to
public exchequer - Plea that no person
cheated and offence compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. - Held, cheating of
Government constitutes offence under
Section 420 IPC as 'St.' falls within
definition of 'person' under Section 11 IPC
- Charge not speculative merely because
exact loss not quantified - Offences under
Sections 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d), 13(2)
PC Act non-compoundable - No ground
for discharge - Revisions dismissed.
(Paras 27, 28, 32, 37, 39 and 41)

HELD:
The second submission of the learned counsel
for the revisionists is the amount of losses has
not been quantified and the charge is merely
speculative. When it is apparent from the
material
available
on
record
that
the
Government had awarded the contract to NPCC
for Rs.14,60,62,604/-, NPCC sublet the contract
to UCC for Rs.13.82 crores and UCC further
sublet the contract to Sat Sai Earth Works
Rs.7.16 crores i.e. almost half the amount of
contract value of NPCC and the contract has
been awarded without following the usual
process of inviting tenders so as to ensure
availability of best rates, prima facie a case of
causing wrongful loss to the Public Exchequer is
1746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made out which needs to be tried by the trial
Court. (Para 28)

Definition of the word 'person' given in Section
11 of the Penal Code is wide enough to include
any association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not. It would certainly include
within its ambit the St. Government, which is a
body of persons. If the accused persons have
deceived the Government by fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing it to enter into a contract
with NPCC, which contract was first sub-let to
UCC and thereafter it was further sub-let to M/s
Sat Sai Earth Works at almost half of the
contract value and thereby an excessive amount
was paid to NPCC, which act has caused
financial loss to the Government, the accused
persons
have
committed
the
offence
of
cheating. If any person was involved in the
criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of
cheating, he is liable to be prosecuted.
Therefore, I find no force in the aforesaid
submission of the learned Counsel for the
revisionist. (Para 32)

The revisionist has been charged for commission
of the offence of criminal conspiracy for
committing
the
offence
punishable
under
Section 420 I.P.C. The revisionist has also been
charged for commission of offences under
Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, which offences are also
non-compoundable offences. Therefore, the
aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for
the revisionist is misconceived. (Para 37)

When the offences under Section 120-B I.P.C.
and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not
compoundable offences, the alleged lack of
opportunity of compounding for want of any
natural person having been cheated, with whose
consent
the
offence
could
have
been
compounded, does not make out a ground for
quashing of the criminal proceedings. (Para 39)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Pravat Chandra Mohanty Vs St. of Odisha,
(2021) 3 SCC 529
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty,
the learned counsel for the revisionists and
Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned
counsel for the opposite party- Central
Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent
has filed counter affidavits and the
revisionists have filed rejoinder affidavits
in both the cases, which are taken on
record.

3. Criminal Revision no. 478 of 2025
has been filed under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C., challenging the validity of an order
dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI,
Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case
No.1600002/2014 arising out of RC-AC12007A0002 under Section 120-B IPC read
with Section 420 IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
Police
Station-
CBI/ACB,
Lucknow,
whereby the trial Court has rejected the
petitioners' application for their discharge.

4. Criminal Revision no. 479 of 2025
has been filed under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C., challenging the validity of an order
dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI,
Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case
No.1600003/2014 arising out of RC-AC12008A0003 under Section 120-B IPC read
with Section 420 IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
Police
Station-
CBI/ACB,
Lucknow,
whereby the trial Court has rejected the
petitioners' application for their discharge.

5. Briefly stated, facts of the giving
rise to Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2025
are that CBI had lodged the aforesaid FIR
5 All. Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
1747
on 23.02.2007 against (i) unknown officials
of
NPCC
Ltd.
(National
Project
Construction Company Limited) Delhi and
Faridabad, (ii) M/s UCC, 29, Pitambar
Nagar, Unnao, U.P. and (iii) others
unknown, stating that a source information
had been received about corruption in
construction of Adwa-Meja link Channel,
Bansagar Canal Project in Unnao Region,
U.P. which revealed that National Projects
Construction Company Limited (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'NPCC') is a
public
sector
Company
under
the
administrative control of Ministry of Water
Resources, Government of India. It is
primarily
responsible
to
carry
out
construction of civil works and canal
systems etc. On 27.05.2005, the Irrigation
Department of Government of U.P. had
awarded
a
contract
to
NPCC
for
construction of the aforesaid canal at a cost
of Rs.14,60,62,604/-. Certain officials of
NPCC entered into a criminal conspiracy
with a private construction company
namely,
M/s
Unnao
Construction
Company,
Unnao,
U.P.
(which
will
hereinafter be referred to as 'UCC') and
they sublet the contract to UCC for
Rs.13.82 crores. UCC further sublet the
contract to another private Company
namely, M/s Sat Sai Earth Works, New
Delhi for Rs.7.16 crores i.e. almost half the
amount of contract value of NPCC and
thereby caused huge wrongful gain to M/s
UCC and corresponding loss to the Public
Exchequer.

6. The FIR further states that the Unit
Officer, NPCC, Kanpur conducted a site
inspection on 23.04.2005 and submitted the
rates for excavation work ranging from
Rs.300/- to Rs.340/- per cubic meter for
preparation of a bid to be submitted by
NPCC to the Irrigation Department of
Government of U.P. NPCC invited limited
tenders on 21.04.2005 from eight firms,
including UCC, for pre-tender tie-up for the
said work. Out of the eight firms, only
UCC submitted its tender on 27.04.2025
quoting rates ranging from 97.5 per cubic
meter to 266 per cubic meter for excavation
work.

7. A note recommending a profit
margin of 5.3% against the total cost of the
work, as quoted by UCC, was processed by
the Officers of NPCC and was approved by
the CMD of NPCC on 02.05.2005.
Accordingly,
the
bid
of
UCC
for
Rs.13,82,38,248/- was approved by NPCC
on 06.05.2005. NPCC submitted its bid at
Rs.14,60,52,604/- by adding a profit
margin of 5.3% to the rates quoted by
UCC,
which
was
accepted.
A
Memorandum of understanding was signed
between the Government of U.P. and
NPCC which inter alia provided that the
contract shall not be sublet. However, the
NPCC awarded the work completely to
UCC for an amount of Rs.13,82,38,248/-
on 01.06.2005. UCC in turn sublet the
work to M/s Sat Sai Earth Work for an
amount of Rs.7.16 crores.

8. The FIR also states that UCC is
quite a new firm which was registered with
NPCC only on 19.04.2005, on limited offer
basis. Even the earnest money was not paid
fully to NPCC. Although UCC had claimed
that it has 10 years experience in the field
of canal and water resources works, it was
registered with Employees Provident Fund
Organization only on 15.04.2005. NPCC
has registered UCC without verification of
its credentials and capability as per the
rules. It is also alleged that UCC was
registered with NPCC for canal and water
resources works worth upto Rs.5 Crores
only and it was not qualified for the
contract. Thus, the contract which the
1748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government
awarded
to
NPCC
at
Rs.14,60,52,604/-, was sublet to UCC for
Rs.13,82,38,248/- which was in turn sublet
to M/s Sat Sai Earth Works for Rs.7.16
Crores. By submitting inflated estimates for
the project work to Government of U.P.
and getting the contract at inflated rates
and, thereafter, subletting it to a private
firm which further sublet it to another firm
at almost half the rate, the officials of
NPCC, in furtherance of a criminal
conspiracy with UCC and other persons,
abused their official position, cheated the
Government,
obtained
pecuniary
advantages for themselves and others and
they caused the corresponding loss to the
Public Exchequer.

9. After investigation, the CBI has
submitted a charge-sheet on 23.12.2009
against
seven
persons,
including
the
revisionists.

10. It is stated in the charge-sheet that
it was conspired that Irrigation Department,
Government of U.P. would award the work
to NPCC and NPCC would pass it on to
UCC through pre-tender tie-up to be made
by way of limited tender process, which
would be so manipulated as to ensure that
the work was eventually awarded to UCC.
Pre-tender tie-up is an arrangement vide
which NPCC invites limited tenders from
its registered agencies and executes MoU
with the lowest bidder and then submits its
own rates to the client after loading its
percentage margin over the rates of the
tied-up agency and on getting the work
from the client, passes it on to the tied-up
agency.

11. The charge-sheet states that Shri
Rajender Singh was the Zonal Manager,
North
Zone,
NPCC
and
he
had
recommended the proposal on 03.05.2005
for accepting the single offer of UCC. He
had created a false impression of urgency
for submission of rates by mentioning that
the rates were to be submitted to the
Irrigation
Department
by
05.05.2005
whereas there was no such communication
from the Irrigation Department. The
proposal was then forwarded by P.K.
Bhargawa, AGM to CMD, NPCC on
03.05.2005
itself.
P.K. Bargawa
has
mentioned that decision regarding margin
of NPCC may be taken so that the same
could be loaded on quotation for submitting
the tender to the Irrigation Department.
Thus, by misrepresenting the facts, the
Officers of NPCC obtained approval of the
CMD and the CMD approved the proposal
on 06.05.2005. On 06.05.2005 itself,
Rajender Singh sent rates of NPCC to the
Chief
Engineer,
Bansagar
Project,
Irrigation Department, Government of U.P.

12. The charge-sheet further mentions
that (i) Praveen Pratap Singh, (ii) Akhilesh
Bahadur Singh (revisionists), (iii) Bal
Kishan. (iv) Rajender Singh, (v) Sunil
Gupta, (vi) R.C. Sharma and (vii) Anil
Vijay violated the relevant rules and
guidelines in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy and thereby awarded the work
to UCC although it was not eligible to
execute the work. If the work was awarded
through open tender, there would have been
competition of rates resulting into better
rates to the Irrigation Department. If NPCC
Ltd. had awarded the work in pre-tender
tie-up through proper tender process, they
would have got better rates and thereby
ensured a higher margin for NPCC Ltd.
Thus, by the above discussed acts of
omission and commission, the accused
persons
have
caused
the
wrongful
pecuniary advantage to the UCC and
corresponding
loss
to
the
Public
Exchequer.
5 All. Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
1749

13. While rejecting the application for
discharge, the trial court has held in the
order dated 04.04.2025 that there is ample
evidence available on record to indicate
that UCC was constituted immediately
before allotment of the work and it had
contacted M/s Sat Sai Earth Works Pvt.
Ltd. for the work, which shows that the
accused persons were confident that they
will be allotted works worth crores of
Rupees. The accused persons had no
license or clearance from the Pollution
Control Board. Although the accused
persons claimed that M/s Sat Sai Earth
Works Pvt. Ltd. was engaged merely for
providing equipment and manpower, the
prosecution claims that the contract had
been sublet on half the consideration. There
is ample evidence available on record for
making out a case for framing charges
against the accused persons under Section
120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC read
with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
accordingly, it rejected the application for
discharge.

14. The facts giving rise to Criminal
Revision No. 479 of 202 are that CBI had
lodged the aforesaid RC-AC1-2008A0003
under Section 120-B IPC read with Section
420 IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police
Station- CBI/ACB, Lucknow on 30-042008 against (i) unknown officials of
NPCC Ltd. (National Project Construction
Company Limited) Delhi and Faridabad,
(ii) M/s UCC, 29, Pitambar Nagar, Unnao,
U.P. and (iii) M/s Uma Shankar Sharma,
Old Nirmal School, Civil LInes, Unnao,
U.P. and (iv) others unknown, stating on
30.08.2005, the Irrigation Department of
Government of U.P. had awarded three
different works for the construction of
Meza-Zirgo-Link-Channel at the costs of
Rs. 31,81,52,777/-, Rs. 4,12,87,922/- and
Rs. 3,62,72,370/- respectively to NPCC.
Certain officials of NPCC entered into a
criminal conspiracy with UCC and M/s
Uma
Shankar
Sharma,
Unnao,
a
proprietorship firm and others in pursuance
of which, they abused their official position
and awarded contracts to them at exorbitant
rates. One of these projects was awarded to
UCC for Rs. 28,20,05,378.50/- and two
smaller works were awarded to M/s Uma
Shankar
Sharma,
Unnao
for
Rs.
3,83,78,597.80/- and Rs. 3,36,76,105.71/-.
M/s UCC Unnao further sublet the work to
Sri Sat Sai Earthworks Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.
14,05,28,334.60/- i.e. almost half the
amount of contract value of NPCC and
thereby caused huge wrongful gain to M/s
UCC and M/s Uma Shankar Sharma,
Unnao and corresponding loss to the Public
Exchequer.

15. After investigation, the CBI has
submitted a charge-sheet on 23.12.2009
against
seven
persons,
including
the
revisionists substantially leveling charges
which are similar to the charge-sheet which
is the subject matter of Criminal Revision
No. 478 of 2025. An application for
discharge was filed on similar grounds and
it has been rejected by a similar order dated
05.04.2025 passed by the trial Court.

16. The learned Counsel for the
revisionists has advanced submissions in
support of Criminal Revision No. 478 of
2025 and he has submitted that the same
grounds and questions are involved in
Criminal Revision No. 479 of 2025 also.
Therefore, both the revisions are being
decided by this common judgment.

17. While assailing the validity of the
both aforesaid charge-sheets, Sri. Purnendu
Chakravarty, the learned counsel for the
1750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionists has submitted that a bare
perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that
the necessary approvals were granted by
the Competent Authorities for award of
contract to UCC. The charge that if the
tender had been awarded through open
tender process, NPCC would have got
better rates, is merely speculative. He has
submitted that the charge is not precise as it
does not mention the rates at which the
work could have been done through open
tender process and the corresponding loss
occasioned to the Government.

18. The contract was awarded to UCC
on 01.06.2005. Much before it, on
02.05.2005, NPCC had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with UCC
inter alia stating that NPCC had decided to
participate in the tender for the work of
excavation of canals of Meja Link Channel
and in the event NPCC succeeds in getting
the work, it would award the same to UCC
at the rates quoted by UCC in their offer
letter dated 27.04.2005 on back to back
basis after proportionate reduction to the
extent NPCC may have to reduce their rates
in consultation with M/s UCC to bag this
work and on the terms and conditions
contained in the original document issued
to NPCC Ltd. by the client. EMD for the
offer will be arranged by the UCC and will
be deposited with NPCC. EMD shall be
refunded to UCC in case works are not
allotted to NPCC Ltd. The MoU was to
remain valid till the award of work to
NPCC. The MoU further stated that all
terms and conditions agreed between the
client and NPCC shall be binding upon
UCC on back to back basis. In case of
requirement, UCC will take the equipment/
machinery
of
NPCC
alongwith
the
operators on hire at the prevailing hire
charges of the Corporation if separable by
NPCC Ltd.

19. On 04.07.2005, an "Agreement
for work" was executed between NPCC
and UCC wherein it is recorded that NPCC
had accepted the MoU issued by the client
(Irrigation Department) and had issued a
letter of award dated 01.06.2005 on back to
back basis and UCC had agreed and
confirmed their unconditional acceptance
to NPCC Ltd. One of the conditions of the
agreement was that UCC shall engage
sufficient construction plant and equipment
at the site by hiring/purchasing from
market although it shall not sublet the
works allotted to them without NPCC's
prior written consent.

20. The learned counsel for the
revisionists has drawn attention of the Court
towards a letter dated 01.06.2005 written by
UCC to M/s Sat Sai Earth Works Pvt. Ltd.
whereby a work order for construction of
Adwa-Meja Link Channel was issued to M/s
Sat Sai Earth Works. It is recorded therein
that the sub-contractor will arrange all
necessary equipment, materials and man
power required to carry out the work. On
06.06.2005, M/s Sat Sai Earth Works Ltd.
had issued a letter to UCC whereby the
former offered its equipment on hire basis for
excavation at Adwa-Meja Link Channel.

21. The learned counsel for the
revisionists has submitted that the aforesaid
agreement makes it manifest that UCC had
not sublet the contract and it had merely
engaged a contractor for supplying man
power and equipment. He has further
submitted that the contract awarded by
NPCC contained an arbitration clause and
in case any of the terms and conditions of
the contract was violated, it would merely
be a case of breach of contract, for which a
civil remedy would lie before the Arbitrator
and no criminal proceedings can be
initiated in this regard.
5 All. Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
1751

22. Even before the award of
Contract, NPCC and UCC had entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding dated
02.05.2005 for excavation of Adwa-Meja
Link Channel wherein it was agreed that in
the event of NPCC Ltd. being successful in
getting the work, it will award the same to
UCC on back to back basis. All terms and
conditions between the client and NPCC
Ltd. shall be binding on UCC on back to
back basis. In case of requirement, UCC
will take the equipment/ machinery of
NPCC alongwith operators on hire at the
prevailing hire charges of the Corporation.
UCC shall engage sufficient construction
plant and equipment at site as per NIT
either from their own stock or by
hiring/purchasing from the market.

23. On 04.07.2005, NPCC entered
into an agreement for work with UCC on
back to back basis which is nothing but
subletting the entire contract.

24. Condition No.22 of the aforesaid
agreement dated 04.07.2005 provides that
"all terms and conditions agreed between
the client and NPCC Ltd. shall be biding to
M/s UCC on back to back basis. Condition
No.27 provides that "UCC shall engage
sufficient construction plant and equipment
at site as per NIT either from their own
stock
or
by
hiring/purchasing
from
market". Condition No.31 provides that
"UCC shall not sublet the works allotted to
them
without
NPCC's
prior
written
consent".

25. On 01.06.2005, UCC issued a
work order to M/s Sat Sai Earth Works Pvt.
Ltd. which begins with the words "With
reference to your above mentioned offer
and subsequent discussion, we are pleased
to place order for construction of AdwaMeja Link Channel from 2.300 Km to
9.000 Km which has been awarded to us by
NPCC vide reference No.NZ/CONT/404
dated 01.06.2005 on the rates offered by
you and noted below. "

26. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
writing in the letter issued by UCC
indicates that UCC had awarded the work
allotted by NPCC to M/s Sat Sai Earth
Works Pvt. Ltd., and it had not merely
entered into a contract for hiring manpower
and machinery. The agreement provided
that all equipment, material and manpower
were to be arranged by UCC. The
following Clauses of this agreement are
relevant to take note of: -

"29. Running payment shall be
made to the sub contractor for the
contractor on the following basis -

i)
For the quantity
executed up to
25% of the total
quantity of earth
work in each Km
length
65%
of
agreement
rate
ii)
For the quantity
executed up to
50% of the total
quantity of earth
work in each Km
length
75%
of
agreement
rate
iii)
For the quantity
executed up to
90% of the total
quantity of earth
work in each Km
length.
90%
of
agreement
rate
iv)
When
executed
quantity exceeds
90% of the total
quantity
to
be
executed in Km
reach
95%
of
agreement
rate
1752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. The Sub- Contractor will
have to complete the work within a period
of 6 months in all respects to the entire
satisfaction of NPCC authorities. (As
mentioned in para 25 above).

31.

to
ensure
the
timely
completion of works, strictly according to
construction schedule the pre-determined
liquidated damages shall be imposed for
delay at every km. stone as specified in
construction schedule @ Rs. 10.000 per
day for each intermediate km stone and @
20.000 per day for final completion of work
subject to maximum delay of 25 days
amounting Rs 3.00 lacs.

32. Incentives shall be payable to
the sub-contractor for early completion at
every km stone as specified in construction
schedule @ Rs. 10.000 per day for each
intermediate km. stone and @ Rs. 20.000
per day for final completion of work subject
to maximum of Rs. 3.00 lacs.

33. The Sub-contractor shall
execute the works as per drawings,
specifications,
and/or
alterations
as
directed in writing by NPCC authorities."

27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
conditions makes it manifest that UCC had
agreed to pay to M/s Sat Sai Earth Works Pvt.
Ltd. for the work done and not for the
manpower and equipment supplied by it.
Thus, the submission of the learned counsel
for the revisionists that UCC had not sublet the
contract, has no merit and the same is turned
down.

28. The second submission of the
learned counsel for the revisionists is the
amount of losses has not been quantified and
the charge is merely speculative. When it is
apparent from the material available on record
that the Government had awarded the contract
to NPCC for Rs.14,60,62,604/-, NPCC sublet
the contract to UCC for Rs.13.82 crores and
UCC further sublet the contract to Sat Sai
Earth Works Rs.7.16 crores i.e. almost half the
amount of contract value of NPCC and the
contract has been awarded without following
the usual process of inviting tenders so as to
ensure availability of best rates, prima facie a
case of causing wrongful loss to the Public
Exchequer is made out which needs to be tried
by the trial Court.

29. The learned counsel of the
revisionists has submitted that no "person" has
been cheated in the present case and that is
why, no person has come forward to lodge any
F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the CBI
on its own. As per the learned Counsel for the
revisionist, without any person having lodged
any FIR alleging that he has been cheated by
the revisionist, the revisionist cannot be
prosecuted for the offence of cheating.

30. Cheating has been defined in
Section 415 IPC, as follows: -

"415. Cheating.-Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property, is said to
"cheat".

Explanation.-A
dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section.
Illustrations
* * *

31. The word person is defined in
Section 11 of the Penal Code as follows: -
5 All. Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
1753

"11.
"Person".-The
word
"person"
includes
any
Company
or
Association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not."

32. Definition of the word 'person'
given in Section 11 of the Penal Code is wide
enough to include any association or body of
persons, whether incorporated or not. It
would certainly include within its ambit the
State Government, which is a body of
persons. If the accused persons have deceived
the
Government
by
fraudulently
or
dishonestly inducing it to enter into a contract
with NPCC, which contract was first sub-let
to UCC and thereafter it was further sub-let to
M/s Sat Sai Earth Works at almost half of the
contract value and thereby an excessive
amount was paid to NPCC, which act has
caused financial loss to the Government, the
accused persons have committed the offence
of cheating. If any person was involved in the
criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of
cheating, he is liable to be prosecuted.
Therefore, I find no force in the aforesaid
submission of the learned Counsel for the
revisionist.

33. The learned Counsel for the
revisionist has next submitted that the
offence of cheating is a compoundable
offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In the
present case no "person" has come forward
to lodge the FIR and the CBI has filed the
FIR on its own. In case the revisionist
wants to get the offence compounded, he
would not be able to do so in absence of the
person cheated having come forward to
lodge
a
complaint.
Therefore,
the
revisionist deserves to be discharged.

34. The statutory provision for
compounding is contained in Section 320
Cr.P.C., the relevant part whereof is being
reproduced below: -

320.
Compounding
of
offences.-(1) The offences punishable
under the sections of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) specified in the first two
columns of the Table next following may be
compounded by the persons mentioned in
the third column of that Table:-

TABLE
Offence
Section of
the Indian
Penal Code
applicable
Person by
whom offence
may be
compounded
1
2
3
* * *
* * *
* * *
Cheating
417
The person
cheated
Cheating by
personation
419
Ditto (The
person
cheated)
* * *
* * *
* * *

(2) The offences punishable under
the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) specified in the first two columns
of the Table next following may, with the
permission of the Court before which any
prosecution for such offence is pending, be
compounded by the persons mentioned in
the third column of that Table:-
TABLE
Offence
Section of
the Indian
Penal Code
applicable
Person by
whom offence
may be
compounded
* * *
* * *
* * *
Cheating a
person
whose
interest the
offender
was bound,
either by
law or by
legal
418
The person
cheated
1754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contract, to
protect
Cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing
delivery of
property or
the making,
alteration or
destruction
of a
valuable
security
420
The person
cheated
* * *
* * *
* * *

(3)
When
an
offence
is
compoundable under this section, the
abetment of such offence or an attempt to
commit such offence (when such attempt is
itself an offence) or where the accused is
liable under Sections 34 or 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be
compounded in like manner.

(4)(a) When the person who
would otherwise be competent to compound
an offence under this section is under the
age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a
lunatic, any person competent to contract
on his behalf may, with the permission of
the Court, compound such offence.

(b) When the person who would
otherwise be competent to compound an
offence under this section is dead, the legal
representative, as defined in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), of such
person may, with the consent of the Court,
compound such offence.

(5) When the accused has been
committed for trial or when he has been
convicted and an appeal is pending, no
composition for the offence shall be
allowed without the leave of the Court to
which he is committed, or, as the case may
be, before which the appeal is to be heard.

(6) A High Court or Court of
Session acting in the exercise of its powers
of revision under Section 401 may allow
any person to compound any offence which
such person is competent to compound
under this section.

(7)
No
offence
shall
be
compounded if the accused is, by reason of
a previous conviction, liable either to
enhanced punishment or to a punishment of
a different kind for such offence.

(8) The composition of an offence
under this section shall have the effect of
an acquittal of the accused with whom the
offence has been compounded.

(9)
No
offence
shall
be
compounded except as provided by this
section."

35. Although the offence punishable
under Sections 417 IPC, which carries a
sentence
of
imprisonment
of
either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both, and
the offence punishable under Section 419
IPC,
which
carries
a
sentence
of
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, may be compounded by the
person cheated, the offence punishable
under Section 420 I.P.C., which carries a
larger sentence of imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years and (not or) fine, may only be
compounded by the person cheated, with
the permission of the Court.

36. Further, Sub-section (3) of
Section 320 provides that when an offence
is compoundable under this section, the
abetment of such offence or an attempt to
commit such offence (when such attempt is
itself an offence) or where the accused is
liable under Sections 34 or 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be
5 All. Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
1755
compounded in the like manner but there is
no provision that the offence of criminal
conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B
I.P.C. to commit any compoundable
offence will also be compoundable.

37. The revisionist has been charged
for commission of the offence of criminal
conspiracy for committing the offence
punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The
revisionist has also been charged for
commission of offences under Sections
13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, which offences are
also
non-compoundable
offences.
Therefore, the aforesaid submission of the
learned Counsel for the revisionist is
misconceived.

38. Moreover, even compounding of
the compoundable offences is not an
indefeasible right and it can only be
compounded by the person cheated with
the leave of the Court. In Pravat Chandra
Mohanty v. State of Odisha: (2021) 3
SCC 529, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"30. The grant of leave as
contemplated
by
sub-section
(5)
of
Section 320 is not automatic nor it has to
be mechanical on receipt of request by
the appellant which may be agreed by the
victim. The statutory requirement makes
it a clear duty of the court to look into the
nature of the offence and the evidence
and to satisfy itself whether permission
should be or should not be granted. The
administration
of
criminal
justice
requires prosecution of all offenders by
the State.

31. The prosecution by the State
is the policy of law because all the
offences are against the society. The
offenders have to be brought to the courts
and punished for their offences to
maintain peace and order in the society.
It is the duty of the prosecution to ensure
that no offender goes scot-free without
being punished for an offence. It is also
the settled principle of law that innocent
should not be punished.

32. The question arises as to
while granting leave of the court for
composition of offence, what is the
guiding factor for the court to grant or
refuse the leave for composition of
offence. The nature of offence, and its
effect
on
society
are
relevant
considerations while granting leave by
the court of compounding the offence.
The offences which affect the public in
general and create fear in the public in
general are serious offences, nature of
which
offence
may
be
relevant
consideration for the court to grant or
refuse the leave..."

39. When the offences under
Section 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(2)
and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption
Act,
1988
are
not
compoundable offences, the alleged lack
of opportunity of compounding for want
of any natural person having been
cheated, with whose consent the offence
could have been compounded, does not
make out a ground for quashing of the
criminal proceedings.

40. In view of the foregoing
discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that there is no merit in any of the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the revisionists.

41. Both the revisions, i.e. Criminal
Revision No. 478 of 2025 and Criminal
Revision No. 479 of 2025, lack merit and
the same are hereby dismissed.
1756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1756
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 37 of 2022
Along with
Other Connected Cases

The National Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Reetu Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Satyajit Banerji

Counsel for the Respondents:
Satendra Nath Rai

Civil Law- The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988-Section 147--- The accident is said
to have occurred on 08.01.2016 and the
policy which had been issued on 28.11.2014
was cancelled
on 09.01.2015 and the
intimation to the insured was sent on
11.02.2015 i.e. the policy having been
cancelled and the holder having been
informed are all events which took place
prior to the accident consequently there
cannot be any occasion for an insurance
policy to have subsisted on the date of
accident i.e. 08.01.2016 and as such, the
insurance Co. cannot be held liable to pay
the amount at the first instance and to
recover from the owne.

Matter remitted. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Laxmamma
& ors.- AIR 2012 SC 2817

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jitendra
Kumar - 2009 (2) T.A.C. 407 Allahabad
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Mohd. Wasim &
ors.- 2009 A.I.C.C. 949

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. F.A.F.O. Nos.37 and 39 of 2022
have been filed against the impugned
award dated 21.10.2021 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Lakhimpur Kheri.

2. Since all the aforesaid appeals
involve common question of law and facts
as such they are being decided by a
common
order.
However,
the
facts
ofF.A.F.O. No.37 of 2022 are being
taken into consideration for deciding the
appeals.

3. Heard Satyajit Banerji, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Satendra
Nath
Rai,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents no.1 to 5.

4. Despite respondents no.6 and 7
having been served nobody has put in
appearance on their behalf. Accordingly,
the Court proceeds to hear and decide the
matter.

5. Under challenge is the judgment
and award dated 21.10.2021 passed by the
learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.54 of 2016 in re: Reetu Devi
and others vs. Bus Owner Kamaljeet Singh
and others, whereby the learned Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.12,85,000/-
against the appellant Insurance Company.

6. F.A.F.O. Nos.125 and 126 of 2022
have been filed by the claimants praying
for enhancement of the amount as awarded
by the learned Tribunal in the said appeal.
Despite service on the respondents nobody
has put in appearance although Sri Satyajit