9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gular course of business nor is there any certificate to that effect - non-compliance of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended - HELD THAT:- In the celebrity judgment of Devender Kumar vs. CBI [ 2019 (1) TMI 1665 - DELHI HIGH COURT ], it has been held that by incorporating Section 17A as it reads by itself, the intention of the Legislature was to protect the public servants in the bona fide discharge of their official functions or duties. It was further held that when act of a public servant is ex facie criminal or constitutes an offence, prior approval of the Government would not be necessary. Section 17A would be applicable to cases where offense is relateable to any recommendation made or decision taken. Thus, it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in a position to scuttle a proper investigation. Bail cannot be granted - petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.37721 of 2020. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.41913 of 2020. Mr. Gaurav Garg, Dhuriwala, Sr. DAG, Punjab. JAISHREE THAKUR J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of two Crl. Misc. Petitions bearing No.41913 of 2020 and 37721 of 2020 arising out of FIR No.9 dated 21.08.2020 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7(A) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase 1, Mohali. The facts are being enumerated fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7(A) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. Apprehending their arrests, the petitioners preferred applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, which petitions were dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant petition in the High Court. 3. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CRM-M No.41913 of 2020 would contend that he has been falsely implicated in the said matter and was not named in the said FIR and there is no allegation made therein regarding the demand and acceptance of any money by the petitioner. It is also argued that the call details were made available with the respondent-State as far back as 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the FIR. A plea has been raised that the petitioner neither demanded nor accepted the alleged illegal gratification and there is no conversation in this regard. He relied upon judgment rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Kailash Chandra Agarwal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others passed in Criminal Misc. (Pet) No.159 of 2018 on 07.04.2020 to contend that investigation without prior approval would amount to gross abuse of process of law. Similarly, he relies upon judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in Ramesh Chennithala Vs. State of Kerala 2018 SCC Online Ker 14261. It is also argued that the judgment relied upon by the State in Devender Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others 2019 (1) RCR (Criminal) 791 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of implicating the petitioner in the said FIR as there is no proof regarding the fact whether these books were maintained in the regular course of business nor is there any certificate to that effect, would not be sustainable at the present moment, as the matter is still under investigation. The register is relied upon by the respondent-State for ascertaining the role of the petitioner herein in his culpability regarding extending help in evasion of GST. 9. The second plea as raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended in 2018 is again not sustainable. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is reproduced as under:- 17A. Enquiry or Inqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Devender Kumar vs. CBI (supra), it has been held that by incorporating Section 17A as it reads by itself, the intention of the Legislature was to protect the public servants in the bona fide discharge of their official functions or duties. It was further held that when act of a public servant is ex facie criminal or constitutes an offence, prior approval of the Government would not be necessary. Section 17A would be applicable to cases where offense is relateable to any recommendation made or decision taken. A similar view has been taken by Chattisgarh High Court in the judgment rendered in Satish PandeyVs. Union of India and others passed in REVP No.43 49 of 2020 on 06.02.2020 and judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in Kamlakar R. She ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
