9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1547 - SC - Indian LawsCriminal Conspiracy - It is the case of the prosecution that having regard to Rule 37 of the Rules, it was incumbent upon the Appellant, before acting upon the reconstitution of the firm, to obtain the previous sanction of the State Government - HELD THAT - The court notes that for punishing Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove the conspiracy. The agreement, which is illegal, can be proved by necessary implication. It is to be largely proved from the inference of the illegal acts or omissions by the conspirators. The incriminating evidence collected by the prosecution, it is noted, is that the Appellant recommended issuance of MDPs in gross violation of the Act despite the office noting to the effect that the matter required legal opinion. The stand of the Appellant that he had discussed the matter with the Legal Department is seen negatived by CW21. As to his contention that many a time AMC was reconstituted and he had really discussed the matter with CW21 before directing the issue of MDPs, was found to be a matter of defence which could not be pressed at the threshold. A matter, Under Rule 37 of the Rules, therefore, according to the prosecution case, which ought to have gone to the State Government for prior sanction, came to be dealt with by the Appellant as Director of Mines. This led to the issue of MDPs. It is, no doubt, true that there may not be any other material to link the Appellant with various other acts and omissions which have been alleged against the first Accused in particular along with the fifth Accused and other Accused. However, the fact remains, if the defence of the Appellant is not to be looked into, which included the practice obtaining in the past whenever the firm was reconstituted, and also the version of the Appellant that he did in fact speak with the Deputy Director (Legal) and acted on his advice and further that this fact would be established if the Deputy Director (Legal) was questioned in his presence, they would appear to be matter which may not be available to the Appellant to press before the court considering the application Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inevitable consequence is that we are not persuaded to hold that the High Court was in error in the view it has taken - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order setting aside the Magistrate's order of discharge. 2. Applicability of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 3. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position. 4. Evaluation of evidence and legal principles for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC. 5. Role and actions of the Appellant as Director of Mines and Geology. Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Order Setting Aside the Magistrate's Order of Discharge: The appeal challenges the High Court's decision which overturned the Magistrate's order that discharged the Appellant. The High Court found that the Magistrate had made an "omnibus observation" and failed to consider incriminating circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The High Court emphasized that for punishing under Section 120B of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the conspiracy, which can be inferred from illegal acts or omissions by conspirators. 2. Applicability of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: The core issue revolves around whether the Appellant violated Rule 37, which mandates obtaining prior consent from the State Government for transferring a mining lease. The Appellant argued that the practice in the Department did not require invoking Rule 37 for reconstitution of the firm and relied on precedents where Rule 37 was not applied. However, the High Court noted that the Appellant's order dated 04.01.2010, which directed the issuance of Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs), was made without obtaining the necessary legal opinion, violating Rule 37. 3. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position: The charge-sheet alleged that the Appellant, as part of a criminal conspiracy, abused his official position to issue MDPs to the new partners of AMC without following due legal procedures, thereby cheating the Government of Karnataka. The prosecution's case was bolstered by the Deputy Director (Legal)'s statement that no legal opinion was sought, contradicting the Appellant's claim that he acted on legal advice. The High Court found that the Appellant's actions raised "grave suspicion" of criminal conspiracy and abuse of power. 4. Evaluation of Evidence and Legal Principles for Discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC: The judgment refers to legal principles established in cases like P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr., emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court must sift evidence to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court must consider the broad probabilities and the total effect of evidence without making a roving inquiry. The Appellant's defense, including the practice of not invoking Rule 37 and his claim of having sought legal opinion, was deemed matters for trial, not for discharge. 5. Role and Actions of the Appellant as Director of Mines and Geology: The Appellant's role began with a letter from AMC's partners informing about the firm's reconstitution. The prosecution argued that the Appellant should have sought prior sanction from the State Government under Rule 37 before acting on the reconstitution. The Appellant's defense was that he acted in good faith based on departmental practices and past precedents. However, the High Court found that the Appellant's actions, particularly his claim of having obtained legal advice, which was contradicted by the Deputy Director (Legal), warranted a trial to determine the veracity of the allegations. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the materials produced by the prosecution raised grave suspicion against the Appellant, justifying a trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the observations made were confined to the context of deciding the application under Section 227 of the Cr.PC, without affecting the trial's outcome.
|
