The date was fixed by the judge yesterday at the end of day-long arguments by the prosecution and defence counsel. This is the first of the 46 corruption cases filed by the state government against the erstwhile AIADMK ministers and IAS and IPS officers in which the judgement will be delivered.The prosecution's charge in the case is that certain irregularities were allegedly committed in awarding tenders to Chennai-based Nisarz and Company for purchasing five crash tenders (fire-fighting equipment), causing a loss of Rs 23,82,260 to the state government.

Summing up his arguments, special public prosecutor V R Venkatasamy contended that between February 1989 and November 1990, Hariharane and Y Md Ziauddin, managing partner of Nisarz and Company entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtainpecuniary advantage for themselves to the tune of over Rs 23.82 lakh.

Relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he said that in the tender application ``an ante-dated letter (August 7, 1989) was inserted stating that the company has been registered as a small-scale industry (SSI).'' However, the company was registered as a SSI only on September 9, 1989 and with the National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) only on December 20, 1989. ``This was done to claim exemption from payment of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), security deposit and other facilities an SSI is eligible for.'' Therefore, all transactions with Nisarz and Company on the basis of the ``interpolated letter'' amount to abuse of power to favour the company, he argued.

The prosecution contended that Hariharane ought to have rejected the company's tender as it did not pay the EMD and did not enclose the NSIC certificate while applying. The company had only enclosed the NSIC certificate of one Wadia Body Builders (WBB), Ahmedabad. Ifthe interpolated letter was enclosed along with the tender document at the time of applying itself then Hariharane would have initialled it, the SPP pointed out.

Another charge was that Nisarz and Co did not have experience in manufacturing fire-fighting vehicles unlike seven other bidders. Besides, the company was sanctioned 50 per cent of the contract money as an advance in violation of rules. The company had not executed the work through WBB, which is stated to be his principal manufacturer, the counsel submitted.Hariharane's counsel based his arguments extensively on the alleged ``improper'' sanction order obtained to prosecute his client. In the absence of a legal sanction, which is the foundation for a trial, the entire proceedings in the case were vitiated, he said.

Contending that conspiracy was not proved in the case, he said the entire matter could at best be a subject matter for a departmental inquiry and not criminal proceedings.

He blamed the prosecution for failing to assign reasons forre-investigating the case (by CB-CID) when a final report was already filed by the DVAC. ``The investigation has been done in a manner not known to law to please some persons,'' he alleged.

Ziauddin's lawyer said there was not even an iota of evidence to show that his client had misrepresented any facts about his company with an intention to cheat the government. Merely accepting the advance money will not amount to abetment, he said adding that the company had made it clear that it was the agent of WBB. Moreover, no one has found fault with the equipment supplied by the company, he said.