Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 824 - HC - Indian LawsComplain under Prevention of Corruption Act - whether the respondent police without any evidence implicated the petitioner/A1? - Held that - Considering the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of the records and citations referred on behalf of the counsel for both parties, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable, the Division Bench has held otherwise and followed the directions of the Apex Court. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Vineet Narain V. Union of India (1997 (12) TMI 615 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - The CBI manual based on statutory provisions of the Cr.PC provides essential guidelines for the CBI s functioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials concerned . Subsequently, this Court in various occasions expressed its view that Rules under Vigilance Manual are only administrative and on non-observance of the same, there is no mandatory violation, which would affect the validity of the prosecution. Once it is decided that the compliance of the rules of the DVAC Manual is not mandatory, if at all any officials violating the rules of manual the court should recommend for taking departmental action against the officials concerned, which will not go to the root of the case. As already stated, that this Court finds there are specific allegations made against this petitioner in the FIR, charge sheet and also in the statement given by the official witnesses recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.PC, there are prima facie allegations made out against this petitioner. Merely because the tainted money has not been recovered from the petitioner/A1 directly, it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings. Further, it is settled proposition that latches on the part of prosecution will not vitiate the case. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere with the power of the trial Court by invoking the provisions contemplated under Section 482 Cr.PC, which is not automatic and it has to be invoked sparingly. It is already held that there is prima facie sufficient materials available to proceed against the accused, the petitioner has not made out any ground to quash the proceedings. The grounds taken are not valid under law and not sufficient to quash the proceedings. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to invoke the discretionary powers given under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings and the petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
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.
|