2020 (11) TMI 1095 - HC - Indian Laws

Shortage of Iron Ores - Presumption of existence of a prima facie case against these petitioners for commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - framing of charges - HELD THAT - The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court for the purpose is not required to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. It becomes necessary to address the last limb of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the documents placed on record being gone through. It may be stated that said documents are not disputed. The petitioners having filed the certified copy of the order of the Revisional Authority in connection with the proceeding pursuant to the very same joint inspection and verification report before the trial court in support of that point raised for their discharge, the prosecution had nothing to dispute as to factum of passing of said order. The shortages 3,04,568.175 MT as alleged/found in the impugned Proceedings are not only unsubstantiated but also have been found to be alleged in contradiction to state Govt. s own records. When the figures of three sources viz. Revisionist, IBM and departmental tally with each other, allegations of shortages based on these figures cannot sustain. Revisionist s contention that in the impugned Proceedings quantity transferred for processing/crushing from the existing stock has been accounted twice by the Department for Feb., Mar, June, July and Sept. months of year 2009 and which she has also explained with statutory returns (Annex.- F to I). Thus she has successfully demonstrated and explained where department has erred. It has added to the merit in her contention - Revisionist has produced 29,18,431 MT of iron ore, whereas only 8,49,589.56 MT can be produced from the excavated pits, as stated above there is no basis given in the impugned Proceedings or in the reply. Nor any document/ evidence in support has been given to the Revisionist or filed before Revision Authority. The order dated 28.07.2018 which has been impugned in this revision cannot be sustained - Revision disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the order rejecting the petitioners' discharge.
2. Empowerment of Vigilance Authorities to investigate under the MMDR Act.
3. Allegations of illegal mining and discrepancies in stock and dispatch of minerals.
4. Impact of the Revisional Authority's decision and the High Court's affirmation on the criminal trial.
5. Standard of proof in departmental proceedings versus criminal proceedings.
6. Relevance of previous exoneration in departmental proceedings on the criminal trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Propriety of the Order Rejecting the Petitioners' Discharge:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 28.07.2018 by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar, which rejected their petition for discharge. The court below presumed a prima facie case against the petitioners for offenses under sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, IPC, and MMDR Act.

2. Empowerment of Vigilance Authorities to Investigate Under the MMDR Act:
The petitioners argued that the Vigilance Authorities were not empowered to investigate offenses under the MMDR Act at the time of the joint inspection and FIR. The court noted that the notification empowering the Vigilance Authorities was issued on 27.01.2010, after the FIR was lodged on 02.12.2009.

3. Allegations of Illegal Mining and Discrepancies in Stock and Dispatch of Minerals:
The prosecution alleged that there were discrepancies in the production and dispatch records of iron ore, leading to accusations of illegal mining and evasion of royalty and sales tax. The petitioners contended that the figures in the prosecution's records were incorrect and contradicted the records obtained under the RTI Act from the Deputy Director of Mines.

4. Impact of the Revisional Authority's Decision and the High Court's Affirmation on the Criminal Trial:
The Revisional Authority quashed the proceedings initiated by the Department of Steel and Mines, which demanded a penalty from the petitioners based on the same allegations. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the figures used by the prosecution were not substantiated and contradicted the department's own records. The court concluded that the findings of the Revisional Authority and the High Court's affirmation had a significant bearing on the criminal trial, as they addressed the same set of facts and allegations.

5. Standard of Proof in Departmental Proceedings Versus Criminal Proceedings:
The court discussed the principle that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probability, which is lower than the standard required in criminal proceedings. The court cited several judgments, including P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar and G.L. Didwania v. ITO, which held that exoneration in departmental proceedings could impact the sustainability of criminal prosecution if based on the same facts.

6. Relevance of Previous Exoneration in Departmental Proceedings on the Criminal Trial:
The court referred to the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, which established that exoneration on merits in adjudication proceedings could preclude criminal prosecution on the same set of facts. Applying this principle, the court found that the exoneration of the petitioners by the Revisional Authority and the High Court's affirmation on the same allegations rendered the criminal charges groundless.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the order rejecting the petitioners' discharge could not be sustained. It set aside the order of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar, and directed that the petitioners be discharged from the case. The decision was based on the principle that the exoneration in the departmental proceedings, which addressed the same set of facts and allegations, precluded the continuation of the criminal trial.