Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Charges in Goa Tender Case But Upholds Forgery and Breach of Trust Charges
In a significant ruling that clarifies the boundaries between administrative irregularities and criminal offenses, the Supreme Court of India delivered a nuanced judgment on May 20, 2025, in the case involving K.H. Kamaladini, a former Executive Engineer from Goa’s Public Works Department. The case, which revolved around allegations of tender manipulation during a water crisis in North Goa, saw the Court drawing clear distinctions between what constitutes criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act and offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
The legal battle began with a complaint dated January 30, 2013, received by the Chief Minister of Goa and Chief Vigilance Officer, containing serious allegations about 19 short tender notices comprising 847 water supply works in the Works Division XVII of the Public Works Department in Porvorim, Goa. The complaint alleged that tender notices worth crores of rupees were not published in newspapers as required by the Central Public Works Department Manual, and works were unnecessarily split without valid justification, ultimately being allotted to the same parties or their associates.
The Department of Vigilance conducted a thorough enquiry into these allegations and submitted a report on March 26, 2013, which revealed startling findings. The investigation confirmed that the 19 Short Tender Notices mentioned in the complaint were never published in any newspaper. More concerning was the discovery that works were quoted 4.8% to 14.95% above their estimated cost, and for most works, only two bidders had quoted bids, clearly indicating that the government did not get the benefit of competitive bidding, thereby causing significant loss to the public exchequer.
The enquiry report particularly focused on the role of K.H. Kamaladini, who was working as an Executive Engineer at the relevant division of the Public Works Department in Porvorim from October 21, 2009, until the date of the enquiry report. During the enquiry, the appellant had submitted that the decision of not advertising tenders costing up to Rs. 10 lakhs was approved by the then Public Works Department Minister to save time, and this decision had approval from other stakeholders. However, the enquiry report made a crucial finding that would become central to the criminal case: “the appellant, after approvals from the aforesaid authorities, inserted in his own handwriting ‘approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O’ just above the signature of the then Public Works Department Minister on each document, so as to project as if it was an instruction from the Minister himself.”
Based on this enquiry report, the Chief Technical Examiner of the Directorate of Vigilance, Government of Goa, lodged a complaint on June 5, 2013, leading to the registration of Crime No. 6 of 2013. After obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution filed chargesheet No. 02 of 2020 on May 22, 2020, for offenses under Sections 409, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The investigation gathered crucial evidence, including a report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which opined that the alleged handwritten remarks on the documents matched the handwriting of the appellant. The chargesheet also contained the statement of Mr. Churchill Alemao, who was the Public Works Department Minister at the relevant time, recorded on March 26, 2015, wherein he alleged that he never directed the appellant to write any remark on the tender documents. He stated that he signed the documents placed before him without making any additions or edits, and if any additions were required, he would generally write them himself.
The appellant’s application for discharge under Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji. The Sessions Judge relied on the test laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases and held that if the statements of the forensic expert and the PWD Minister are not controverted in cross-examination, such evidence would be sufficient to convict the appellant. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to frame charges for offenses punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly inserting words in the documents which were entrusted to him to avoid publication of tenders. The Sessions Judge also proceeded to frame a charge for the offense under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The appellant then filed Criminal Revision Application No. 195 of 2023 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, contending that none of the ingredients of the offenses charged against him were made out by the material produced in the chargesheet. However, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s decision, holding that the allegation of not following the procedure laid down for awarding tenders to benefit a cartel of contractors by inflating the cost of tenders may satisfy the ingredients of criminal misconduct laid down in Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made several compelling arguments. He contended that “the nineteen tenders in question, wherein the procedure of publication in newspapers was not followed, pertained to the work urgently required to be carried out to meet a grave water crisis in Porvorim and other regions of North Goa.” The counsel highlighted that the High Court of Bombay at Goa was already seized of the matter in PIL No.1 of 2010 titled “Soter D’Souza and Anr. v. The Principal Chief Engineer PWD Altinho, Panji Goa” concerning water supply to citizens. The High Court had already taken the PWD and all responsible engineers, including the appellant, to task. In accordance with the directions of the High Court in its order dated June 3, 2010, the appellant filed an affidavit dated October 14, 2010, stating that the Public Works Department shall make all efforts and endeavors to supply water for at least one hour a day.
The counsel for the appellant argued that “in order to resolve the crisis and expedite the regular supply of water, one of the measures was to do away with the publication of tenders.” In furtherance of this decision, 741 reports and 847 works, executed between October 21, 2009, and November 24, 2011, contained written instructions of the Public Works Department Minister not to publish the tenders in newspapers. The counsel also raised a significant point about the departmental proceedings, stating that “on the basis of a lack of evidence to prove forgery, the appellant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry proceedings by the Inquiring Officer.” Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court in Radhe Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Ashoo Tiwari v. CBI, the counsel submitted that “the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher than the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, which is based on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, since the appellant has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, on the same facts and allegations, criminal proceedings cannot be pursued.”
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned order and submitted that “the action of the appellant of not publishing tenders was in violation of the CPWD Manual and he was never directed to take any decisions in contravention to the established practices of the Public Works Department.” It was further submitted that “the findings of the CFSL indicate that the handwriting of the appellant matches the handwriting on the notings/reports.” Regarding the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the counsel for the respondent submitted that “no reliance can be placed on the report of the Inquiry Officer exonerating the appellant, as disciplinary proceedings contemplate a varied scope of enquiry and can run parallel to the criminal proceedings, and that the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings can have no bearing on the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant.”
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-cancels-bail-in-murder-case-land-dispute-turns-deadly/
The Supreme Court, in its consideration of submissions, began by clarifying the legal position regarding discharge applications. The Court stated that “at this stage, the Court can examine only the documents forming part of the charge sheet, and no other material can be considered.” Secondly, “after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the appellant.” Thirdly, “at this stage, the Court cannot sift the evidence forming a part of the chargesheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff.” Fourthly, “if the Court is of the view that the evidence without cross-examination or rebuttal shows that the accused has not committed any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed.” Lastly, “if the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will not discharge the accused.”
Applying these principles, the Court held that “at this stage, the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be examined, and what needs to be examined is the material forming part of the chargesheet.” The Court noted the specific allegation against the appellant: “after the Hon’ble Minister for the Public Works Department signed the note/report granting approval for issuing of tenders, above the signature of the Hon’ble Minister, the appellant inserted the following words: ‘approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue w/o’.” Further allegation was that “he committed forgery by inserting the aforesaid words with the object of showing that the addition was made by the Hon’ble Minister.”
The Court gave significant weight to the fact that “there is an opinion of the Scientist of the CFSL that the inserted words were in the handwriting of the appellant.” The allegation was that by not publishing tender notices, loss was caused to the Exchequer for two reasons: “firstly, the revenue could have earned by the sale of the tender documents, and secondly, the revenue could have been benefited from getting competitive bids.”
Regarding the offense under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (Forgery for purpose of cheating), the Court analyzed the definition of forgery under Section 463 and held that “considering the allegations made in the charge sheet and the report of the CFSL, a case is made out to proceed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC. If the case of the prosecution is considered without controverting it, obviously, there is prima facie material against the appellant to proceed for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC.”
For the offense under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (Criminal breach of trust by public servant), the Court observed that “in this case, the reports/documents signed by the Hon’ble Minister were entrusted to the appellant. The allegation is that he dishonestly inserted the portion quoted above the signature of the Minister. Therefore, taking the case of the prosecution as it is, even the offence under Section 409 is also attracted.” The Court further noted that “if we take the statements of the witnesses and, in particular, the Hon’ble Minister as it is, a case was made out to proceed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 of the IPC.”
However, the Court took a different view regarding the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court examined Section 13(1) as it stood prior to its amendment, which came into force on July 26, 2018. After a detailed analysis of the provisions, the Court made a crucial finding: “There is no allegation made in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Therefore, on a plain reading, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act will not be attracted.” The Court further observed that “in this case, there is no allegation that the appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification. There is no allegation that he had agreed or accepted any valuable thing or had dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him. Therefore, the ‘criminal misconduct’ as provided in Section 13(1) is not attracted in this case.”
The Court concluded that “there was no case made out to proceed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.” Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned orders and set aside the direction to frame charges for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while maintaining the order for framing charges for offenses under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court clarified that “the observations made in this judgment are only for the purposes of considering the plea of discharge. The same will not bind the Trial Court at the time of the final hearing of the case.” The appeal was partly allowed on these terms.
This judgment represents a significant interpretation of corruption laws in India, particularly emphasizing that not every administrative irregularity or procedural violation amounts to criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court drew a clear distinction between acts that involve obtaining pecuniary advantage and those that might involve procedural violations without direct financial benefit. However, the Court also reinforced that forgery and criminal breach of trust by public servants remain serious offenses that require proper judicial scrutiny through trial proceedings.
The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of documentary processes in government functioning while also ensuring that criminal laws are applied precisely and not used to criminalize administrative decisions made in public interest, even if such decisions involve procedural deviations. The case will now proceed to trial for the IPC offenses, while the corruption charges stand quashed, setting an important precedent for similar cases involving allegations of procedural irregularities in government tender processes.
Petitioner Name: K. H. Kamaladini.Respondent Name: State.Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih.Place Of Incident: Goa.Judgment Date: 20-05-2025.Result: partially allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: k.-h.-kamaladini-vs-state-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-05-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Augustine George Masih
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
