IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
MANISH PITALE, J.
Sunil — Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through Police Station Incharge — Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2019
Decided on : 20-09-2019
Prevention of Corruption Act - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2), 109, 420 R/w 120-B of IPC - Section 227 of CrPC
Fact of the Case:
An application for discharge by the accused (original accused No.6) was rejected by the Trial Court. The accused were charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for allegedly causing undue losses to the State Government through a criminal conspiracy. The accused, including the applicant, were alleged to have hatched a conspiracy during the awarding of tenders for works in Ghodazari branch canal of the Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court rejected the application for discharge, holding that there was sufficient material on record disclosing the existence of all required ingredients of alleged offences and the role of the applicant in the conspiracy. However, the High Court found that the material on record was insufficient to raise grave suspicion against the applicant and that he deserved to be discharged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the material on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the applicant and justify his trial for the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles laid down in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation to determine whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused. It emphasized the need for grave suspicion to justify framing charges and proceeding with the trial.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the Trial Court's order, and allowed the application for discharge filed by the applicant.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Pitale, J.
By this revision application, the applicant (original accused No.6), has challenged order dated 10/09/2018, passed by the Court of District Judge - 11, Nagpur (Trial Court), whereby application for discharge moved by the applicant herein was rejected.
2. An FIR dated 30/04/2017, was registered in the present case against the applicant and other accused persons for offences under Sections 13(1)(c),13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sections 109,420 R/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The incident in respect of which the FIR was registered had allegedly taken place on 20/06/2006. Some of the accused persons were officials of the Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation while the others, like the applicant herein were the employees of a private entity called "M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited".
3. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons in the present case was that they had all entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause undue losses to the State Government and that the accused who were officials of the Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation and employees of the said M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited i.e. co-accused had hatched the said conspiracy when tenders were being awarded for works in Ghodazari branch canal of the Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation. The allegation against the applicant was that at the relevant time, he was working as General Manager (Business Development) with M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited and that he was party to the activities undertaken by the said company for caterlization along with other bidders, in order to cause illegal loss to the State Government to the tune upto Rs.7.81 Crores.
4. On the basis of investigation conducted by the investigating agency, chargesheet was submitted on 31/07/2018, before the Court below, wherein charges were levelled against the accused persons, including the applicant herein for the aforesaid offences. At this stage, applications were filed by the accused persons, including the applicant herein for discharge, under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 i.e. the officials of the Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation was allowed and they were discharged on the ground that proper sanction was not obtained before launching prosecution against them. The said order has been made subject matter of challenge before this Court in separate proceeding, which is said to be pending.
5. The application for discharge filed on behalf of the applicant (Exh.51), was however rejected by the Trial Court by holding that there was sufficient material on record disclosing existence of all required ingredients of alleged offences and of the role of the applicant in hatching conspiracy in question. The said order passed on 10/09/2018, is made subject matter of challenge in the present revision application.
6. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. C.S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if material placed on record by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet and supporting documents, was to be accepted as it is, no case of suspicion leave alone grave suspicion was raised against the applicant and that, therefore, the Trial Court had committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. It was submitted that the only role attributed to the applicant was that he had addressed a communication to the bank requesting for issuance of 3 demand drafts to be submitted with an application on behalf of the said company i.e. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited as also for applications being submitted by other bidders. It was submitted that the said letter was issued on the basis of specific written instructions given by accused No.7, who was working as Senior Vice President of M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited and that since
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh
Soma Chakravarty Vs. State Through CBI
Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Ors.
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another
Vijay Dhondiram Kamble, Rajendra Dhondiram Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra, Vilas Namdev Kamble
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.