0

Dismiss the FIR due to lack of direct proof of bribe was legally unsustainable: Supreme court

Blog , ,

Case Title: SANJU RAJAN NAYAR Versus JAYARAJ & ANR

Case No: 8254/2023

Decided on: 23rd April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE JUDGE SANJAY KAROL and THE HON’BLE JUDGEPRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE

Facts of the case:

The case is an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s ruling to suppress a formal complaint (FIR) concerning claims of bribery. The respondent was cleared in departmental proceedings, but the High Court improperly weighed the evidence . The appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court’s decision and enabled the FIR to finish as it should have . The Court stressed that all factual and legal disputes are available for additional discussion by the parties in front of the proper forum . Due to the damning evidence against the respondent not being taken into consideration, it was deemed legally unfeasible to quash the FIR

Appellant’s Contentions

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s arguments, accepted the appeal, overturned the High Court’s decision, and revoked the FIR quashing order . As a result, the FIR that was the subject of the proceedings was reinstated and allowed to proceed legally . The Court made it clear that all factual and legal disputes are still open for the parties to resolve in the proper forum at the right time . The decision was made because it was illegal to dismiss the FIR without taking into account evidence that could have implicated the respondent .

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent, Jairaj, was cleared in departmental proceedings concerning a complaint of bribery demand, which resulted in the High Court of Karnataka nullifying the FIR against him . The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the FIR for additional legal action after finding the High Court’s approach to be legally untenable for failing to take into account incriminating evidence, such as a pendrive that would have shown cooperation in the crime. The Court emphasized the necessity for a thorough legal process to address the matter, pointing out that the High Court had neglected to take important principles and facts into account.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The FIR and ruling in the case of Sri Jayaraj v. State of Karnataka were quashed by the Supreme Court, which granted the appeal against the High Court of Karnataka’s decision. As a result, the FIR under consideration for the proceedings is brought back to life in accordance with the legislation . The High Court disregarded important evidence, such as a pendrive that might have shown the accused’s involvement in the crime, in favor of dismissing the FIR because there was insufficient direct proof of the accused requesting payment or a bribe . The High Court’s approach was deemed legally unsustainable by the Court because it disregarded significant evidence that came to light throughout the investigation .

“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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

The Conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board Into Corporations Is in the National Interest: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL

Blog , , , , , , ,

Title:  Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh v. Union of India & Anr.

Decided on:  3rd August, 2023

+  W.P.(C) 8056/2022 and C.M. Nos. 24455/2022, 24456/2022 & 13262/2023 

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA &                                 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA  

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Centre’s decision to convert the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven corporations. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula opined that the move to corporatize the OFB is in the national interest and does not violate any constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. The Court’s decision came in response to a PIL filed by the Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh (BPMS), a federation of trade unions representing workers in defense installations, including the Ordnance Factory Board.

Facts

The BPMS filed a PIL against a Gazette notification issued by the Government of India on October 1, 2021, which proposed the conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven major corporations. The petitioner federation raised several grievances in the writ petition, claiming that the workers’ views were ignored, there was an abuse of power by the government, arbitrariness, and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the government’s action suppressed the constitutional rights of government servants and silenced their voices. The petitioner sought to quash the Gazette notification, restrain the respondents from implementing it further, and seek appropriate orders in the interest of justice.

Analysis

The respondents, representing the Government of India, justified the policy decision, stating that it aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency, and production in the interest of the nation. They assured that the service conditions and retiral benefits of existing OFB employees would be safeguarded as Central Government employees, and their pension liabilities would continue to be borne by the government. However, despite the government’s efforts to explain the benefits and protect the interests of the employees, the BPMS expressed its intention to go on an indefinite strike. In response, the government enacted the Essential Defence Services Act to ensure an uninterrupted supply of ordnance items to the armed forces and maintain essential defence services.

Held

The Delhi High Court, after a thorough consideration of the arguments, held that the government’s policy decision to convert OFB into seven corporate entities was in the national interest and aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency, and innovation in Ordnance Factories. The Court emphasized that the power of policy-making lies solely with the executive, and the Courts cannot bind the government to its policy decisions taken in public and national interest. Moreover, the Court observed that the decision does not violate any constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. It is well-established that Courts should not interfere with policy decisions made in the national interest. Therefore, the PIL was dismissed as the interests of the employees had been adequately protected by the government.

“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- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement