Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (1) TMI 824 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of CC.No.6 of 2013 filed under Section 7, 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Allegations of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe.
3. Validity of sanction accorded against the petitioner.
4. Compliance with the Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption.
5. Procedural violations and their impact on the trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of CC.No.6 of 2013:
The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet on the grounds that the prosecution lacked evidence, and the sanction for prosecution was mechanically granted. The petitioner argued that the trial was unwarranted in the absence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe. The court, however, found that there were substantial materials available for the demand and acceptance made by the petitioner. The forensic science analyst report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein, and the solution used for the test was submitted before the trial court. The official witness corroborated the demand and acceptance made by both accused on 09.06.2011.

2. Allegations of Demand, Acceptance, and Recovery of Bribe:
The prosecution alleged that the defacto complainant handed over ?15,000 to the petitioner, who then passed it to A2. The petitioner contended that no amount was recovered from him during the trap proceedings and that the prosecution failed to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery. The court noted that the official witnesses stated the involvement of both accused, and the forensic evidence supported the prosecution's case. The court concluded that there were prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioner.

3. Validity of Sanction Accorded Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the sanctioning authority did not verify the basic aspects and fundamental principles, resulting in a mechanical grant of sanction. The court, however, did not find merit in this argument and upheld the sanction accorded against the petitioner.

4. Compliance with the Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption:
The petitioner claimed that the prosecution violated several rules of the Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, which would vitiate the trial. The court referred to the Division Bench's view that the rules under the manual are directive and not mandatory. The court held that non-compliance with the manual does not affect the validity of the prosecution and that any deviation should be addressed through departmental action against the officials concerned.

5. Procedural Violations and Their Impact on the Trial:
The petitioner contended that the trap laying officer did not follow the prescribed procedures, including giving the petitioner an opportunity to offer his explanation after the trap proceedings. The court acknowledged the procedural lapses but emphasized that such lapses do not vitiate the case. The court concluded that the petitioner must face the trial and prove his innocence, as there were sufficient prima facie materials to proceed against him.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the criminal original petition and directed the Special Court to frame charges immediately and dispose of the main case within six months. The court emphasized that procedural lapses in the investigation do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case and that the petitioner must face trial to contest the allegations.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates