#bribe Archives - Prime Legal

3 Apr

“Meaningless” To Request Bail In Corruption Cases stating that the Government Has Not Been Affected: P & H High Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #bribe, #corruption

Case Title:-Mukesh Kumar Versus State of Harayana

Case No:- CRM-M-29883-2023

Decided on:-20-03-2024

Quorum:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Facts of the case:-

The case’s basic facts are that, pursuant to section 17a of the pc act, the state government granted permission for the registration of an enquiry (number 07) dated 10.05.2019 in gurugram through letter no.58/52/2018-iv(1) dated 03.05.2019. Transmitted through the office of the director general of the state vigilance bureau, haryana panchkula, and the additional principal secretary of the haryana government’s vigilance department, against the petitioner/accused mukesh solanki estate officer, hud gurugram, and rishi raj, director of m/s r.r. Foundation engineering private limited, on may 10, 2019.

That during the investigation, it was discovered that m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. Had applied to the huda department, sector 14, gurugram, to take part in the s.c.o. No. 08 and 30 open auctions in sector 23/23a, gurugram. Thereafter, due to highest bid of r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, on december 18, 1997, he was given s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 of r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd., for having the highest bid, and s.c.o. No. 13 of r.r. Construction, for having the highest bid, for sector 23, 23a, gurugram. 10% of the total cost was paid in cash at the location by the aforementioned company. 15% of the total was then required to be deposited within a month after the allotment letter’s issuing date. The huda department. Regarding this matter, huda, gurugram dispatched registered letters no. 284 and no. 285 to m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd and r.r., respectively, on december 18, 1997. Buildings, although the postal service returned these letters to the huda office stating that “no such company exists with this name and style at this address.” However, the aforementioned businesses’ offices are still situated at the same address as of right now. The 15% sum was not deposited by either of the aforementioned companies within the allotted time. Then, on 10.04.2018, estate officer -1, huda, sector-14, gurugram, forfeited 10% of the paid money and canceled the s.c.o. Nos. 08, 13, & 30 allotment orders in sector 23/23a, gurugram, via letter dated 10.04. 1998. The preceding the addresses of m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. And r.r. Constructions got the aforementioned orders and notices. The owners of m/s r.r. Foundation engineering pvt. Ltd. Company and r.r. Constructions thereafter attended the huda sector-14, gurgum office on april 15, 2018, and filed their applications to challenge the cancellation of the allocation.

The application was submitted to the chief administrator of huda, haryana, panchkula, after first being reviewed by the estate officer, huda, gurgwarn, administrator, and gurugram. The changes and appeals were rejected all the way up to the commissioner and secretary of the haryana town and country planning department. On february 20, 2000, the revision petition was likewise dismissed. Following that, on october 8, 2004, m/s r.r. Foundation engineering pvt. Ltd. Filed a plea before the district consumer district redressal forum in gurugram; nevertheless, the same was however on august 1st, 2008, the same was also dismissed. On november 30, 2011, the state consumer dispute redressal commission denied the appeal as well. After that, they said nothing. On april 21, 2010, in ateli, district mahendergarh, rishi raj, director of r.r. Foundation pvt. Ltd., obtained a registered g.p.a. Of s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 in favor of sh. V.k. Goyal, son of r.c. Goyal, who resides at c.b.h. 11, narayana, new delhi. Rishi raj ceased to be the owner of the aforementioned scos as a result of their cancellation. In collusion with sh. V.k. Goyal and other defendants, rishi raj created false documentation and completed the g.p.a. Of the two aforementioned s.c.o.s in his favor.

Subsequently, about s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30, sector 23/23, gurugram, g.p.a. Subsequently, g.p.a. Holder sh. V.k. Goyal filed c.w.p. Nos. 12629/2016 and 8565 of 2018 in the hon’ble punjab and haryana high court in chandigarh, seeking re-allotment of both the aforementioned s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 in sector 23/23, gurugram. Hud a written declaration on merits was filed in this civil writ petitions. While the aforementioned cases were still before the hon’ble high court, on march 7, 2018, v.k. Goyal, the holder of the g.p.a., made a representation before the government. This was typically forwarded to the chief administrator’s office at hud, haryana, panchkula. The administrator of hu”a, panchkula has been downmarked for further action by the chief administrator of huda, panchkula. After that, the administrator at the time, sh. Ram swaroop verma.

Petitioner Contentions:-

Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate submits that petitioner is Unaware of the said case at the time of filing of present petition and as such this fact Was not concealed and otherwise it would have also no bearing in the present petition. Moreover, connected petition for bail relates to the aforesaid FIR. Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim Anticipatory bail and the said order remained continuing and on 01.09.2023, when the Matter listed before this court, interim order was extended when the petitioner Voluntarily stated that they would have no objection if this Court while extending the Interim order imposes any stringent conditions including declaration of assets of Petitioner as well as his spouse. Subsequently, on 14.09.2023, petitioner’s counsel Submitted that they have voluntarily complied with the order dated 01.09.2023 and Handed over the affidavits to the State counsel.

Respondent Contentions:-

Learned counsel for Respondent stated that On 22.02.2024, State counsel responded that he had accepted money Through his portal on 03.07.2018 without any authortization and symbolic possession Was given on 23.08.2018, whereas allotment was provisional. It was further informed That said allotment was cancelled on 30.08.2018 and symbolic possession was also Recalled and in fact allottee was never put in physical possession of the SCOs in question.

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

Court stated that in the analysis of the above arguments points out that petitioner was required to Wait for the final decision by CEO, when he was specifically asked, but he issued Provisional allotment, his malicious conduct is established when he handed over Symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries. The another reason Which points towards the petitioner’s mis-conduct is that he was aware of the pendency Of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while Issuance of provisional allotment. As concerned for the inquiry on his part qua non-Delivery of letter to allottee, was part of proceedings before the Appellate Authority of HUDA as well as before Consumer Redressal Forum. The petitioner also ignored and by-Passed the judicial order passed by the authority and Consumer Court. Petitioner also seeks bail on the ground that no loss has been caused to the Government and the said argument is meaningless. If this argument is accepted, then Every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss caused to Government, would be entitled to bail which is neither the meaning within the Prevention of Corruption Act nor the provisions relating to cheating, forgery under Indian Penal Code. In fact the petitioner tried to avoid allotment from the CEO at Panchkula by ensuring that the matter is closed at Faridabad itself. Later on when the Writ petition which was filed by the beneficiaries was withdrawn, then the matter was Enquired by CEO Panchkula, which resulted in further enquiry and revealed the Malicious intent and participation of petitioner. petitioner fails To make a case for anticipatory bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the Case’s merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to These comments. Given the serious nature of allegations and the apparent malicious intent of the Petitioner, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Petition dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, also Stand disposed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

8 Mar

Self-incriminating statements not expected to be made under the threat of interim protection cancellation: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #anticipatory bail, #arrest, #bribe, #custodial investigation, #interim protection

Case title – Bijendar VS State of Haryana

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No(S). OF 2024 (Arising from SLP (Crl.)No(s). 1079/2024)

Order passed on – March 06, 2024

Quoram – Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the case

Bijendar is a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, Haryana. A complaint was filed against him alleging that he has taken bribe to sign the proposal to enhance the cost estimate for upgrading a building of the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, to a ‘green building’. The Municipal Corporation alleged that such an exercise by the appellant led to inflating the tender value.

The appellant filed an application before the High Court for the grant of an anticipatory bail in the present matter. But, his plea was rejected by the Court. Subsequently, the order was challenged before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in its order dated 05.02.2024 granted interim protection to the appellant on an obligatory condition that the appellant had to cooperate with the investigating agency.

Issue – Detention of the appellant at the investigation stage

Submissions on behalf of the State

The learned counsel for the State opposed the appellant’s plea for pre-arrest bail by filing a counter affidavit. The Counsel submitted that, though the appellant had joined the investigation as per the Court’s order, he neither cooperated with the police for the recovery of bribe amount nor disclosed the other facts of the case. Hence, he contended that a custodial investigation of the appellant was necessary for thorough investigation.

Court’s observation and order

The Court decided only on the issue of detention of the appellant at the investigation stage and did not test on the legality of the case instituted against him. The Court refused to treat the instances of non-cooperation on the part appellant as a justification for dismissal of the interim protection. The Court held that the accused on bail is not expected to make incriminating statements under the threat of withdrawal of interim protection.

The Court, in the absence of any aggravating factor refused to allow custodial interrogation and therefore, directed the appellant to continue his cooperation with the investigating officer during the period of investigation. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

5 Oct

Bombay High Court upholds acquittal of medical officer accused of taking ₹100 bribe in 2007

Prime Legal

Blog # Corruption #Justice, #BOMBAY HIGH COURT, #bribe

Title: State of Maharashtra v. Dr Anil Shinde

Decided on: 3rd October, 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2012

CORUM: Jitendra Jain, J

Introduction

A government medical officer was recently acquitted of charges related to the alleged receipt of a ₹100 bribe from a patient in exchange for the issue of a medical certificate. This recent legal event has generated a lot of discussion and attention. Surprisingly, what would appear at first to be a modest money transaction, a ₹100 bribe has given rise to a number of ethical and legal concerns. When compared to the larger context extending from the years 2007 through 2023, Justice Jitendra Jain, the case’s presiding judge, asserts that the amount in question looks unexpectedly minimal.

Facts of the case

Dr. Anil Shinde, who the State of Maharashtra nominated as a medical officer in September 1995, was the subject of the case before the court. He had been sent to a small hospital in Paud, district of Pune. Laxman Pingale, the plaintiff, alleged that the doctor requested ₹100 in 2007 in order to issue a medical certificate certifying Pingale’s injuries. For the certificate, Shinde reportedly wanted a money despite treating the wounds. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) received a complaint from the patient, Pingale, and a trap was set in February 2007. A team from ACB allegedly inspected the hospital on February 20 and caught the medical professional in the act. Therefore, legal action was taken against him in accordance with the PCA, or the Prevention of Corruption Act. The special ACB court notified Shinde on June 16, 2011, that he had been accused of violating PCA Sections 7 and 13. He submitted a “not guilty” plea, and the trial got started. After the trial was over, on January 31, 2012, the special judge cleared Shinde of all charges. The State government appealed this acquittal to the High Court.

Courts analysis and Decision

The court noted that the Prevention of Corruption Act’s Section 20(3) stated that if the claimed bribe or gratification was modest, no inference of corruption could be made and the court might decline to assume that the accused is corrupt. The court further draws support from the verdict of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hanmantappa Murtyappa Vijapure through L.R. Vs. State of Maharashtra [1], where the Court considered bribe of Rs.150/- as trivial for establishing criminal prosecution and the proper course of action could have been departmental inquiry.

The Court continued by noting that the purported satisfaction in this case was very little. Based on an evaluation of the facts, the trial court’s perspective is a reasonable one. The High Court concluded that the special judge’s ruling of acquittal did not need intervention and that the current appeal should be rejected. Justice Jain concurred with the trial court’s judgement to acquit the medical officer as a result.

Written by- Shivanshi Singh

[1] Hanmantappa Murtyappa Vijapure through L.R. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (3) M.L.J. 410

Click here to view your judgement

30 Jun

Appeal by Village Officer convicted for accepting bribe dismissed by the Kerala High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #bribe, #keralahighcourt

Case Title: M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Bench : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Date : 16/06/2023

Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2013

Facts:

This case involves an appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the judgement of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant, while working as a Village Officer in 2006, accepted a bribe of ₹650/- from the complainant for providing a location map.

Analysis:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification and that the evidence of acceptance was not convincing. The defence claimed that the appellant was framed by the complainant, who put the marked currency notes in the appellant’s pocket. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant (PW1), an independent witness (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW9) to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Judgement:

The court noted that the appellant admitted to receiving the possession certificate and issuing the location map to the complainant. The prosecution’s evidence, including the marked currency notes recovered from the appellant, supported the allegation of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. The appellant was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Conclusion:

The court found the appellant guilty of accepting a bribe as a public servant and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, along with the recovery of the marked currency notes, were considered strong evidence against the appellant. The court’s decision reflects the importance of combating corruption and holding public servants accountable for their actions.

click here to view judgement

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

5 Jun

The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by the official is absolutely mandatory for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Prime Legal

Blog #bribe, #Gujarathighcourt, #publicservant

State Of Gujarat vs Ambalal Kalabhai Parmar

Bench: Honourable Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak

JUDGMENT DATED: 12/04/2023

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1009 of 2006

Facts

In the instant case, the respondents(police officials) were charged under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act but acquitted by the trial court. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in the Gujarat High Court against the decision. As per section 7, a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

The Assistance Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB” for short) had received a tip that the Police Officers of the Baroda Rural Traffic received illegal gratification amount from the drivers of the passenger vehicles. Therefore the ACB arranged a sting operation to entrap them for which a driver was roped in for assistance in the operation.

The ACB officials gave Rs. 500 to the driver(5 currency notes of Rs. 100 each) and put anthracene powder on it and told the driver to give those specific notes when he found any Police Officers demanding the money.

When the car approached the place, the police officials stopped the driver and demanded bribe. The driver acted as per instructions and paid a bribe of Rs. 200 from the specific currency notes. The police officials were caught red handed which lead to the ACB arresting them.

The accused persons refuted the charge and pleaded not guilty before the trial court. After going through oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advances by both the sides, the Trial Court passed an order of acquittal. It is this judgement that the appelants have appealed against in the Gujarat High Court.

The counsel for the appellants submitted that despite witnesses testifying against the police officials, the trial court overlooked the testimony and thus the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents accused be convicted for the alleged offence of illegal gratification.

The advocate for the respondents submitted that the basic ingredients of the offence i.e. demand and acceptance was not established beyond the reasonable doubt, as there was no demand at all raised by the respondent accused and therefore, the judge of the trial court had rightly considered and appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution, while passing the impugned judgment.

Judgement

The Court, after considering the facts found the main witness of the prosecution had disowned from his version and not supported the case of the prosecution, with regard to the first ingredients of the demand nor had he supported the contents of the F.I.R..

The Court held that the Trial Court had not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpired that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court was sustainable and the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. In view of the evidence on record, it clearly found that the Trial Court had minutely examined the evidence and has properly appreciated the evidence on record and also not committed any error of fact and law in acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against them.

Hence, the judgement of the trial court was affirmed by the Gujarat High Court and the appeal stood dismissed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement