2016 (6) TMI 340 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence of criminal conspiracy and the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act - requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C - charge under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - No sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required in the present case as the offences alleged against the petitioner cannot be said to be done in the discharge of his official duties to claim the protection as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner regarding protection of the petitioner as per Section 6-A of the DSPE Act; contention regarding non-holding of preliminary enquiry by the CBI before registration of FIR; contention regarding the manner in which the raid was conducted; contention regarding absence of demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner; contention regarding the fact that the alleged conversation attributed no role to the petitioner; contention regarding statement of approver Pankaj Bajaj cannot be used against the petitioner; contention regarding missing chain of circumstances in the present case and the contention regarding the fact that despite having no evidence against the petitioner, the charges have been framed against him by the Trial Court culminates into non-interference in the order passed by the Trial Court as the disputed facts cannot be made the basis for quashing, the order on charge and the charge framed, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same are subject matter of the Trial Court to be determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order on charge and framing of charges.
2. Validity of Section 6-A of the DSPE Act.
3. Evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
4. Admissibility of recorded conversations.
5. Role of co-accused turned approver.
6. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
7. Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Order on Charge and Framing of Charges:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the order on charge dated 21.09.2013 and the framing of charges dated 07.10.2013 under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges were framed against multiple accused, including high-ranking officials of the Income Tax Department and executives of M/s Eldeco Group. The petitioner contended that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe and that the recovery of money was planted.

2. Validity of Section 6-A of the DSPE Act:
The petitioner argued that as a senior officer, he was protected under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act, which prohibits inquiry or investigation against officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above without prior approval of the Central Government. However, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, which declared Section 6-A unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner could not claim protection under this section.

3. Evidence of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe:
The petitioner argued that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe, and mere recovery of money is not sufficient to constitute an offense of bribery. The court noted that the conversations and meetings between the accused and the recovery of bribe money from the petitioner's residence raised a strong suspicion sufficient to frame charges. The court emphasized that these contentions are findings of fact to be dealt with at the trial stage.

4. Admissibility of Recorded Conversations:
The petitioner contended that the recorded conversations did not prove the demand for bribe and showed his reluctance to meet Pankaj Bajaj. The court held that the cumulative effect of the recorded call details and meetings showed a prima facie case of conspiracy and acceptance of bribe. The admissibility of such evidence would be determined during the trial.

5. Role of Co-Accused Turned Approver:
The petitioner argued that the statement of co-accused Pankaj Bajaj, who turned approver, could not be relied upon. The court rejected this contention, noting that Pankaj Bajaj's statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and could be used to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The reliability of the statement would be assessed during the trial.

6. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner contended that the cognizance taken by the Trial Court was defective as no separate sanction was obtained for offenses under the IPC. The court cited the judgment in Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar, which held that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required for offenses that are not part of the duty of a public servant, such as criminal conspiracy and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court emphasized that the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., does not inquire into complicated questions of fact or sit in appeal over the decision of the trial court. The court's role is limited to checking whether the authority acted within its jurisdiction and whether there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court found no grounds for interference in the trial court's order on charge and framing of charges.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, with the court holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the protection under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act, the absence of demand and acceptance of bribe, the admissibility of conversations, the role of the approver, and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. were matters to be determined at trial. The court found no basis for quashing the order on charge and the framing of charges in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

← Previous Next →