2024 (9) TMI 1243 - SC - Indian Laws

Payment of illegal gratification - Conspiracy - offences punishable under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7,12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the allegation is about payment of illegal gratification of Rs.58,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively, on behalf of the said company to officials of the customs department to procure benefits to its customers. As regards the allegation regarding the payment of Rs.58,000/-, the case is that accused no.1- Mehul Jhaveri paid the said amount to another accused, Chandubhai Kalal. The charge sheet contains no allegation against the respondent to connect him with the payment. The allegations of being part of a criminal conspiracy are made against the respondent. As regards payment of illegal gratification of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively paid to Anand Singh Mall, in the charge sheet, the allegation against the respondent is that the respondent in conspiracy with Mehul Jhaveri abetted the offence of bribery and arranged for payment of illegal gratification of Rs.3,50,000/- to Anand Singh Mall at Delhi through one Kishan Rajwar, who happens to be the respondent's nephew. Further allegation is that Mehul Jhaveri, in conspiracy with the respondent and one Dushyant Mulani, arranged to deliver illegal gratification of Rs.1,50,000/- to Anand Singh Mall in Mumbai. The prosecution is not relying upon any telephonic conversation between the respondent and any of the coaccused or the person to whom illegal gratification was allegedly paid. The High Court has examined the statements of the witnesses and documents which were a part of the charge sheet. The High Court has observed that in the diary entries made by accused no.1, the word Dilipbhai has been mentioned at the top. Against the entries of the amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, the letters DM have been mentioned. However, no witness stated that the letters DM meant the respondent, not Dushyant Mulani. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the discharge application, the appellant admitted that letters DM refer to Dushyant Mulani and not the respondent. Therefore, except for the bald allegation of participation in the alleged conspiracy without giving any details of the conspiracy, the respondent has been roped in the charge sheet. His name did not appear in the First Information Report. Taking the material forming part of the charge sheet as true, it cannot be said that a prima facie case of involvement of the respondent was made out. In the circumstances, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court when it discharged the respondent. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Discharge of the respondent by the High Court in a case involving offenses under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Allegations of criminal conspiracy, bribery, and illegal gratification against the respondent

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Discharge of the respondent by the High Court
The respondent, along with other accused, faced charges under Section 120 B of the IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court discharged the respondent based on the allegation that he was involved in a conspiracy to pay illegal gratifications. The charge sheet detailed instances where bribes were allegedly paid to customs officials for clearing refund claims. The High Court's decision was challenged, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including a remand to reanalyze factual aspects. Ultimately, the High Court reaffirmed its decision to discharge the respondent.

Issue 2: Allegations of criminal conspiracy, bribery, and illegal gratification
The charges against the respondent included allegations of involvement in a conspiracy to pay bribes to customs officials. One instance involved the payment of Rs.58,000 to clear refund claims, while another pertained to Rs.3,50,000 paid to an Assistant Commissioner for SAD refund claims. Additionally, Rs.1,50,000 was allegedly handed over to the Assistant Commissioner through the respondent. The prosecution argued that the respondent, as the Managing Director, facilitated these payments on behalf of the company. However, the defense contended that there was no direct evidence linking the respondent to the illegal transactions. The prosecution did not rely on any telephonic conversations involving the respondent, and the entries in the diary maintained by the main accused did not definitively implicate the respondent. The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, noting discrepancies in the interpretation of diary entries, ultimately leading to the discharge of the respondent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to discharge the respondent, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence connecting the respondent to the alleged criminal activities. The judgment clarified that the observations made pertained solely to the respondent's role in the case.