2015 (9) TMI 1646 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of criminal proceedings - Surprise inspection of unaccounted money - Bribe - specific contention put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the petitioner has demanded and accepted bribe from District Managers, TASMAC - seizure memo not prepared - whether in the absence of seizure memo, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed? - Held that - From a close reading of Section 461 of Cr.P.C., it is easily discernible that mere failure on the part of the Investigating Agency in preparing seizure memo does not vitiate the proceedings - In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Investigating Officer has not prepared any seizure memo with regard to tainted money. Only on that basis, present petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Special Calendar Case No. 3 of 2014. It has already been pointed out that the irregularity put forth on the side of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of Section 461 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Failure to prepare seizure memo is nothing but a flimsy mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer. Supreme Court in the case of KHET SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2002 (3) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , made clear that if there is any irregularity in preparing seizure memo, it would not belittle or vitiate the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, as stated in many places, with regard to seizure of tainted money from the petitioner, seizure memo has not been prepared. It is nothing but a flimsy mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer, but at the same time, the Court has to look into the statements alleged to have been given by some District Managers, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that most of them have given bribe to the petitioner - It has already been pointed out that mere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in preparing seizure memo would not vitiate the entire proceedings. Further, as per the decision referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seizure memo can be used as a corroborative evidence. Therefore, it is quite clear that it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Since seizure memo can be used as a corroborative evidence, mere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in preparing the same would not militate the case of the prosecution. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of Criminal Original Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations of bribery and corruption against the petitioner.
3. Absence of seizure memo as a ground for quashing the proceedings.

Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Original Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioner, a Senior Regional Manager, filed a petition seeking to quash Special Calendar Case No. 3 of 2014, alleging false accusations of bribery. The respondent police conducted an investigation based on a complaint and seized a substantial amount of money from the petitioner's office. The petitioner argued that no seizure mahazar was prepared during the surprise inspection, challenging the prosecution's case. The defense cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the importance of proper procedures in recoveries.

Issue 2: Allegations of bribery and corruption against the petitioner:
The prosecution contended that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribes from District Managers, leading to a surprise inspection where unaccounted money was discovered. The defense argued that the lack of a seizure memo undermined the prosecution's case, relying on legal precedents to support their stance. The court examined the necessity of a seizure memo and its evidential value, emphasizing that it is corroborative rather than substantive evidence.

Issue 3: Absence of seizure memo as a ground for quashing the proceedings:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings based on the absence of a seizure memo. However, the court clarified that such irregularities do not automatically invalidate the proceedings under Section 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court highlighted that the absence of a seizure memo does not necessarily impact the prosecution's case, especially when supported by witness statements and other documentary evidence.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, emphasizing that the absence of a seizure memo, while a procedural lapse, does not undermine the case against the petitioner. The court highlighted the importance of considering all available evidence, including witness statements and documents, in evaluating the alleged involvement of the petitioner in bribery activities.