2016 (6) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to respondent to register the petitioner's complaint and to investigate the same - Demand of Bribe - It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police are not going beyond the low level officers in order to find out where the money trail ends - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that it is the duty of the police to probe beyond the lower level minions and find out as to where the huge sum of rupees two crores has gone. This Court directs the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, (Job Racketing) to take over the investigation in X Cr.No.441 of 2015 and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch is directed to monitor the same. Since an FIR has already been registered, it is not necessary to have another FIR registered either on the complaint dated 04.04.2015 or the representation dated 07.03.2016 given by the petitioner. This petition is closed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Direction to register petitioner's complaint and investigate
- Allegations of bribery in job appointments at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
- Failure of police to conduct an inquiry on the complaint
- Allegations of shielding the Minister by omitting his name in complaints
- Accused influencing the complainant
- Lack of detailed information in petitioner's complaints
- Progress of investigation and arrests made
- Allegation of police not probing beyond lower-level officers
- Direction for higher-level police officials to take over the investigation

Analysis:

1. Direction to register petitioner's complaint and investigate:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a direction for the police to register his complaint dated 08.03.2016 and conduct an investigation. The court heard arguments from both sides, with the Additional Public Prosecutor stating that multiple complaints had been received regarding bribery in job appointments at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.

2. Allegations of bribery in job appointments:
The petitioner alleged that he was approached by individuals claiming to be related to a Minister and demanded a bribe for a job appointment. The petitioner admitted to giving a significant amount of money but did not specify the date of the transaction. Other complaints were also received by the police regarding similar allegations.

3. Failure of police to conduct an inquiry:
The petitioner approached the court as the police had not taken any action on his complaint. The court noted that while some arrests had been made and an FIR registered based on other complaints, the petitioner's case had not been adequately addressed.

4. Allegations of shielding the Minister:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the police were shielding the Minister by omitting his name from complaints. However, the court found that the Minister's name was indeed mentioned in the petitioner's complaint, refuting this claim.

5. Accused influencing the complainant:
There were allegations that the complainant who initially filed a complaint had been influenced by the accused. The court emphasized that this should not absolve the accused of criminal liability.

6. Lack of detailed information in petitioner's complaints:
The court noted that the petitioner's complaints lacked crucial details, such as specific dates of transactions, which are essential in cases involving illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. Progress of investigation and arrests made:
The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that several arrests had been made in the case, and the investigation was ongoing. However, the petitioner's counsel expressed concerns about the depth of the investigation.

8. Allegation of police not probing beyond lower-level officers:
The petitioner's counsel raised concerns that the police were not investigating beyond lower-level officers to trace the money trail. The court agreed that a thorough investigation was necessary to determine where a substantial amount of money had gone.

9. Direction for higher-level police officials to take over the investigation:
In light of the above issues, the court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, to take over the investigation and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, to monitor the same. The court emphasized the importance of probing beyond lower-level officers to uncover the full extent of the corruption.

In conclusion, the court closed the petition with the direction for higher-level police officials to handle the investigation, highlighting the need for a comprehensive probe into the allegations of bribery and corruption in job appointments at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.