0

THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD AN ORDER SUMMONING POLICE OFFICERS IN A CORRUPTION CASE

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Case no.: SPL(Crl.) appeal no. 11654 of 2013

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant has filed a criminal appeal with the Supreme Court of India, contesting the decision made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh on March 23, 2023, which dismissed the Criminal Revision the appellant had filed in opposition to the Special Judge’s Bathinda order of March 5, 2018, which had allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoning the appellant and three other police department officials.

Punjab Agro Food grains Corporation Ltd. of Bathinda filed a complaint against Devraj Miglani at the Phul Police Station in the District of Bathinda, which was registered as a FIR. The complaint alleged that Devraj had misappropriated paddy. The investigation of the said FIR was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda, where the appellant was posted as an Inspector and tasked with investigating the crime. The accused, Devraj, was arrested. He was granted police remand and then transferred to judicial custody.

And the informant in this case, Puneet Kumar Miglani, is the accused Devraj’s son. According to the informant in this case, on September 6, 2013, Head Constable Kikkar Singh approached Ms. Ritu, the accused Devraj’s niece, at her workplace, the Bathinda branch of the SBI, demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- by handing over a slip purportedly written by the accused Devraj, indicating that the holder of the slip may be provided with the said amount. Devraj and his niece Ritu allegedly conversed on Head Constable Kikkar Singh’s mobile phone. The informant came to know of the said demand by Kikkar Singh. He went to the bank, took the slip, and after recording a conversation between his wife and his father, he presented it to the learned Magistrate, along with a complaint.

The local police were directed to register the complaint and investigate it further. Following a thorough investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police Janak Singh, it was determined that the allegations against Head Constable Kikkar Singh were prima facie true, and a First Information Report was filed at the police station Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda. During the investigation of the aforementioned FIR, the informant, informant’s wife, Devraj, and others provided statements. Following the investigation, a police report against Head Constable Kikkar Singh only.

The date of both trials, the trial arising out of the FIR against Devraj and the trial arising out of the FIR against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, coincided on September 29, 2014. The appellant went on to depose, supporting both the prosecution’s case and his own investigation of Devraj. On that date, in the trial against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, informant Puneet Miglani provided additional evidence as PW 1. On the specified date, he completed both his chief and cross examinations. In addition, he prepared and filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant and three other police officials.

The trial court dismissed the application due to a lack of sanction under both the PC Act and the Cr.P.C. The said order was successfully challenged before the High Court, and the High Court, in an order dated 23.01.2018, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh order, ignoring the issue of sanction. The High Court believed that no sanction was required. The Trial Court granted the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the four police officials in accordance with the remand. The appellant challenged the 05.03.2018 order in the High Court.

The high court dismissed the said revision in the impugned order dated March 23, 2023. Aggrieved, and it is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. deals with “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence”,

406 of IPC deals with “Punishment for criminal breach of trust”,

409 of IPC deals with “Criminal breach of trust by public, servant. or by banker, merchant or agent”,

420 of IPC deals with “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”,

457 of IPC deals with “Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment” and

Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(2) of PC Act deals with “Criminal misconduct by a public servant”.

APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS:

He claimed that it was a pressure tactic on the part of the informant to browbeat the appellant because he had deposed against his father Devraj. The informant, was convicted in another case, so his statement should not have been relied on.

The complaint dated 06.09.2013 made no allegations against the appellant. The complaint was filed on September 6, 2013, for a demand of only Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, in a statement issued on September 29, 2014, the four officials, one Deputy Superintendent of Police, the appellant, and two other Head Constables, allegedly demanded Rs.24 lakhs.

RESPONDANTS CONTENTIONS:

They claimed that the appellant and other police officers had not only harassed and tortured Devraj while he was in custody, but also threatened and tortured family members both mentally and physically in order to extract a large sum of money. They submitted the relevant witnesses’ statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. both during the investigation and before the Trial Court.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

After considering the submissions, the court concluded that it is clear that the informant, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.09.2013, narrated complete facts regarding the conduct of police officials immediately following his father’s surrender on 30.08.2013 in the case registered against him for misappropriation. The informant has consistently supported the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. from that point forward, including during the trial.

Even Devraj and Eshaa Miglani, in statements recorded during the investigation on 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013, respectively, provided the same information as narrated by informant Puneet Miglani on 22.09.2013. Furthermore, their statements during the trial support and align with their previous statements. All of these witnesses have unequivocally described incidents that occurred at various locations, including threats, demands for large sums of money, torture of Devraj.

The Informant gave the same statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Trial Court on May 26, 2014, which was continued on September 29, 2014. There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to establish a triable case against the appellant. As a result, we are unlikely to challenge the contested order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

“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.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

0

In Absence Of This Relevant Material Offence Under Section 11 Of P.C. Act Can’t Be Established: High Court Of Bombay

Blog , , ,

Title: Anil Goel v Union of India & Anr.

Citation: Criminal Revision Application No.183 Of 2023

Coram: Justice Bharati Dangre

Decided On: 25th OCTOBER, 2023

Introduction:

F.I.R.No.RC/18(A)/2015 dated 18/12/2015 is lodged by the CBI, ACB, Cochin for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, & 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A primary charge-sheet was fled against the other accused persons named in the F.I.R. , leaving out the Applicant and even during the course of investigation from 2015 to 2019, he was never arrested. On 31/07/2019, C.B.I. fled the supplementary charge- sheet against the Applicant, accusing of committing an offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act.

Facts:

The allegation levelled against him is that, while functioning as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) from the period between 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2015, he occupied a flat (guesthouse) belonging to M/s Heera Constructions, without payment of any rent. t is a claim of the C.B.I. that as M/s Heera Constructions fell within the assessment jurisdiction of the Applicant, the act of staying in the flat, without payment of rent, constitutes the offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act.

The investigation had revealed that Heera Constructions had taken the subject flat used by it as guesthouse on lease from another private person. On being taken on lease, the lease rent was paid by it. The Applicant is alleged to have stayed in the Apartment, free of cost, by abusing the offcial position, as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that rent of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid by M/s Heera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to the owner of the Apartment.

It is alleged that Heera Builders paid rent of Rs.20,000/- per month for the period from February 2014 to January 2015 (12 months) and Rs.25,000/- per month from February 2015 to September 2015 (8 months) i.e. Heera Builders paid total rent of Rs.4.4 lakhs to Mrs.Nanma Jayan for the stay of the Applicant in the flat.

The Applicant moved an application for his release on bail, post fling of the charge-sheet on the ground that, he was never arrested during investigation and the same is allowed by the Special Court for C.B.I. at Greater Bombay on 19/09/2022.

The Applicant came to Thiruvananthapuram as CCIT and his sub-ordinate i.e. the ITO showed him the flat, which he was to occupy. Apparently, he did not make any inquiries, unaware about the ownership of the flat or it’s possession. Counsel contended that if it is the allegation that he continued to reside free of cost, then why no notice was ever issued and in fact, the charge-sheet disclose that the service charge, as directed to be paid, was borne by the Applicant from January 2014 to November 2015.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

From reading Section 11 of P.C. Act it is evident that the act of a public servant, accepting or obtaining or attempting to obtain, either for himself or for any other person, any “valuable thing”, without consideration or for an inadequate consideration, from any person whom he knows to have been or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by the public servant or has any connect with his offcial position, then such an act would amount to an offence under Section 11.

But, In absence of this relevant material in the charge-sheet, which would constitute as a ground for presuming that the Applicant has committed the offence, the charge must be considered to be groundless, which is a same thing as saying that there is no ground for framing the charge.

Applicant occupied the flat, but has failed to pay the rent and this act is sufficient to make out a prima facie offence under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the P.C. Act though Accused No.2-Sarath was refused sanction and he was not charge-sheeted and, hence, the offence under Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC is not made out. In absence of establishing that the flat has been enjoyed free of cost and it has a connect with the duty to be discharged by the Applicant in relation to the assessee, merely because a assessee fall within his jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 11 are made out. Hence the order dated 13/02/2023 was set aside by the court and the Applicant is discharged from Special Case No.751 of 2022.

“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.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar

Click here to view judgement

0

Unmasking Corruption Allegations: Delhi High Court Clears the Cloud of Doubt in Demand vs. Recovery of Bribe Money 

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Jai Narayan v. State 

Date of Decision: September 6, 2023 

Case Number: CRL.A. 259/2007 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma 

 

Introduction 

This case involves an appeal challenging a judgment and sentencing order passed by the Special Judge in a case arising from a complaint filed with the Anti-Corruption Branch. The appellant, Jai Narayan, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly accepting a bribe. The appeal was filed under Section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 

 

Factual Background 

On August 5, 2003, the complainant, Jai Narayan Saini, filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch alleging that the appellant, a meter reader, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for issuing duplicate water bills. When the complainant refused, the appellant allegedly reduced the demand to Rs. 300, with the promise of issuing duplicate water bills in the name of the complainant’s wife. A raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch on the same day, resulting in the appellant’s arrest while accepting the alleged bribe. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, charges were framed, and the appellant pleaded not guilty, leading to the trial. 

 

Legal Issues 

The key legal issues in this case include:  

  1. Whether the prosecution has proven the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
  2. Whether the appellant can be convicted solely based on the recovery of the bribe money without sufficient evidence of demand?

 

Contentions 

  • The appellant contended that he had been falsely implicated, and there was no demand for a bribe.  
  • The complainant’s testimony did not support the prosecution’s case.  
  • The appellant argued that the raid witness’s testimony was insufficient to prove guilt.  
  • The appellant raised doubts about the presence of the panch witness during the raid and their reliability.  
  • It was contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the authority to convert meter connections from commercial to domestic use. 

 

Observation and Analysis 

The Special Judge relied on the testimony of the raiding officer and the panch witness, concluding that the appellant had accepted the bribe money. The judge also noted the appellant’s failure to explain the recovery of the money from his possession. However, the complainant did not fully support the prosecution’s case, and there were contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. 

 

Decision of the Court 

The High Court observed that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the demand beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction based on mere recovery of money was not sustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentencing order against the appellant.  

 

“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.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

 

0

Bombay HC acquits a person convicted for corruption due to lack of evidence

blog , ,

Title: Ambadas s/o Ramaji Sahare v. State of Maharashtra

Decided on: 22.08.2023

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.610 OF 2004

CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J

Facts of the Case:

The appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dated 13.9.2004 .

Damodhar Nathuji Dhurve, the Informant, owned few acres of  land on which were teak-wood trees. He needed permission of the Forest Dept.  to cut those trees and for such permission, he was in need of 7/12 extract, map, and certificate from Talathi and, therefore, he approached to the office of the accused for obtaining the above said documents. He intimated the purpose of his visit to the office of the accused and requested the documents. The accused allegedly asked him to give Rs.300 for those documents. The informant tried to negotiate with him the amount, but when he did not agree, the informant approached ACB and through a trap designed by ACB the accused was caught.  He was later convicted for offences mentioned above and this was challenged by him.

Issues

Whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from the informant and whether interference is called for in the judgment and order of conviction impugned.

Contentions:

The appellant claimed that amount Rs.224.45 was due against the informant towards the fees of reimbursement and the amount is paid towards the said fees. The accused also pointed out that the informant was involved in construction of a mosque illegally on the land of the gram panchayat. The demand is not proved. Mere recovery of the amount is not sufficient to prove the charges. Insofar as the demand and the acceptance are concerned, kotwal PW2 Maroti Kathane, who was working with the accused, has not supported. The sanction order is also not as per the requirement. The sanction order is invalid and, therefore, the conviction deserves to be set aside. The prosecution has also examined Kotwal PW3 Manohar Hikare, whose evidence shows that when he entered into the office of the accused, only the informant was present and except the informant no other person was present.

On the other hand, the Respondent supported the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Special Judge and submitted that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance.

Decision:

Court found that the prior demand by the accused is not proved by the prosecution, a doubt is created as to demand of the amount as a gratification as the admission given by shadow pancha PW4 Dilip Ganvir shows that the accused has communicated to informant PW1 Damodar Dhurve that the amount is towards fees and also asked the informant to take receipts and asked him to sit for taking such receipts. These admissions sufficiently create doubt as to the prosecution case .

The appeal was allowed. The impugned order was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

“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.”

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

click to view jugment

1 2