9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1248 - HC - Indian LawsOffence under Prevention of Corruption Act - Absence of a valid sanction - trial as conducted against the public servant - security scam - Harshad S. Mehta case against whom the case however stands abated on account of his untimely death in the year 2001. The other Accused were at the relevant time the Officers in the State Bank of India, Held that - Here in the case Investigating Officer has obtained the sanction for prosecution of accused No.1 R. Sitaraman. However the Prosecution has failed to prove it and therefore it is as good as not on record. The Prosecution has filed a report dated 30/08/2018 stating that the sanctioning authority Mr. Gordhan Bhojraj Kathuria has expired on 25/01/2018 and therefore not available for giving evidence. In considered opinion of this Court if the sanctioning authority was not available then in that case the Prosecution could have examined any other witness from the said Department who was acquainted with the facts of the case or even with the signature of the sanctioning authority and get the sanction proved. The burden was entirely upon the Prosecution to prove the fact that the requisite sanction has been obtained. The Prosecution has however not made any attempt to prove the sanction by examining the subordinate officer or the staff who has seen the sanctioning authority signing the sanction order or who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority. Merely filing the order purported to be the sanction order alleged to have been signed by the competent authority does not discharge the burden on the Prosecution of proving the sanction according to law - no hesitation in holding that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case against all the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the order. (i) Accused No.1 R. Sitaraman Accused No.3 Ravi Kumar Accused No.4 Ashok Agarwal Accused No.5 Janardan Bandopadhyay Accused No.8 Ashwin Mehta Accused No.15 S.R. Gupta Accused No. 16 B.D. Raut and Accused No. 17 P. Murlidhar stand acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 120B and 420 in the alternate Section 409 read with Section 120B of IPC. (ii) Accused No.1 R. Sitaraman Accused No.3 Ravi Kumar Accused No.4 Ashok Agarwal Accused No.5 Janardan Bandopadhyay Accused No.12 Suresh Babu Accused No.15 S.R. Gupta Accused No. 16 B.D. Raut and Accused No.17 P. Murlidhar are further acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Accused No.8 Ashwin Mehta stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 of IPC. (iii) Accused No.1 R. Sitaraman and Accused No. 16 B.D. Raut are further acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 477A read with Section 120B of IPC. (iv) Accused No.3 Ravi Kumar and Accused No. 12 Suresh Babu are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 467 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC. (v) Accused No.8 Ashwin Mehta and Accused No. 15 S.R. Gupta stand acquitted for the offence under Section 411 and 414 read with Section 120B of IPC. (vi) Bail Bonds of all the Accused persons stand cancelled. However as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 they are directed to execute fresh P.R. Bonds and Surety Bonds for the amount of 25, 000/-each for their appearance before the Hon ble Supreme Court as and when notice is issued to them in respect of any Appeal or Petition filed against Judgment and such Bonds shall be in force for six months. Accused No.1 R. Sitaraman Accused No.3 C. Ravi Kumar Accused No.4 Ashok Agarwal Accused No.5 Janardan Bandopadhyay Accused No.8 Ashwin Mehta and Accused No.12 Suresh Babu are granted three weeks time to furnish cash surety of 25, 000/- each. Accused No.15 S.R. Gupta Accused No. 16 B.D. Raut and Accused No. 17 P. Murlidharan were released on bail on furnishing PR Bonds and Cash security of 25, 000/- each. Same security be continued for the period of six months for their appearance before the Hon ble Supreme Court as and when the notice is issued to them in respect of any Appeal or Petition filed against Judgment and such Bonds shall be in force for six months.
Issues Involved:
1. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. 2. Cheating or criminal breach of trust under Section 420 or 409 IPC. 3. Criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Falsification of accounts under Section 477A IPC. 5. Forgery and using forged documents under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. 6. Receiving and concealing stolen property under Sections 411 and 414 IPC. 7. Validity of sanction for prosecution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC: The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to benefit Accused No. 2 Harshad Mehta by diverting funds from SBI Caps. The court found that the evidence did not establish a meeting of minds or collusion among the accused. The roles of the accused were well-defined and separated, making it difficult to prove a conspiracy. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide direct or circumstantial evidence to support the charge of conspiracy. 2. Cheating or Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 420 or 409 IPC: The court observed that the prosecution did not establish that the accused had dominion over the funds or that there was any misappropriation. The alleged transactions were conducted in the normal course of business, and there was no evidence of wrongful gain or loss. The court highlighted that the prosecution's case was based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence. 3. Criminal Misconduct under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of criminal misconduct. The evidence did not show that the accused had dishonestly misappropriated funds or abused their position for pecuniary gains. The court also noted the lack of valid sanction for prosecution, which is a mandatory requirement under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Falsification of Accounts under Section 477A IPC: The court observed that the prosecution did not provide evidence of falsification of accounts by the accused. The alleged entries in the Blue Diary and other records were made in the normal course of business and did not indicate any fraudulent intention. 5. Forgery and Using Forged Documents under Sections 467 and 471 IPC: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had committed forgery or used forged documents. The evidence did not show that the accused had made any false documents with the intention to deceive. 6. Receiving and Concealing Stolen Property under Sections 411 and 414 IPC: The court noted that there was no evidence to support the charge of receiving or concealing stolen property. The prosecution did not establish that the accused had knowledge of the property being stolen or had assisted in its concealment. 7. Validity of Sanction for Prosecution: The court highlighted the lack of valid sanction for prosecution as a major lacuna in the case. The evidence showed that the sanctioning authorities did not apply their minds independently or were aware of the factual aspects of the case. The court emphasized that a valid sanction is a mandatory requirement for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other related offenses. Conclusion: The court acquitted all the accused on all charges due to insufficient evidence and lack of valid sanction for prosecution. The detailed analysis revealed that the prosecution's case was based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of valid sanction and proper application of mind by the sanctioning authorities in cases involving public servants.
|
