Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 329
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
M.L. MEHTA, J.
Ravinder Kumar Chandolia
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Others
W.P.(CRL.) NO. 72 of 2012
Decided on : 06-02-2012
For the Appellant:Vijay Aggarwal with Gurpreet Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with IO Rajesh Chahal.
The judgment establishes the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, the scope of official duties for the need of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, and the necessity of permission under Section 6A DSPE Act.
Headnote:
Sanction - Prevention of Corruption Act - 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - 120-B IPC - 420, 468, 471 IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: PC Act - Section 19, Section 197 of CrPC, Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to drop proceedings against them, challenging the legality of the sanction and the investigation. The case involved allegations of criminal conspiracy and misconduct in the allotment of UAS licenses and spectrum by the Department of Telecommunication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind, and no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required as the alleged acts did not fall within the scope of official duties. The court also noted that no initial permission was required under Section 6A DSPE Act as the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the sanction, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, and the permission under Section 6A DSPE Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and material, and no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required as the alleged acts did not fall within the scope of official duties. The court also noted that no initial permission was required under Section 6A DSPE Act as the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. The present petition is against the order of the trial court dated 29/07/2011 whereby the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner for dropping of proceeding on the ground that the sanction accorded was illegal and without application of mind.
2. The instant case was registered on 21/10/2009 against unknown officials of Department of telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as “DOT”), government of India, unknown private persons/companies and others for the offences punishable under section 120-B IPC read with 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the “PC Act”), on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct, in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (UAS) Licenses and spectrum by the DOT.
3. After investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet against twelve accused person including the present Petitioner, a public servant of the Joint Secretary level.
4. Facts, as far as the same are relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are that receipt of applications for new UAS licenses in DOT has been a continuous process; the applications were processed in the order in which they were received. However after A. Raja took over as Minister of Communication & Information Technology in May 2007, there was manipulation in the processing of these applications for UAS licenses by DOT.
5. It is alleged that during this period the Petitioner, was PS to Minister of Communication & Information Technology and was an active participant in the alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by A. Raja, MOC&IT. He had been continuously monitoring the status of the receipt of the applications in Access Services (AS) Cell of DOT. He was continuously updating himself with the status of the applications and names of applicant companies. On 24/09/2007, he enquired from the concerned officer of AS Cell if the application of Unitech Ltd. for new UAS licences has been received and directed that no application should be accepted after the receipt of the application from M/s Unitech Ltd., which were expected to be received on the same day. When informed that receipt of application should be stopped arbitrarily, the DDG (AS-I) was asked to put up a note in this regard. A note dated 24/09/2007 was put up by the AS Cell mentioning that if the receipt of applications is to be discontinued, the public should be informed by way of a press release and proposed that 10/10/2007 as the date till which applications may be received.
6. It is alleged that the accused A. Raja in furtherance to the conspiracy to ensure better prospects for his favoured companies, cut short the last date of receiving applications to 01/10/2007. A press release was issued to this effect on 24/09/2007 itself, which appeared in newspapers on 25/09/2007. It is further alleged that even though the cut off date was announced in the press release as 01/10/2007, accused A. Raja in conspiracy with other accused persons, had already taken a view to keep the cut off as 25/09/2007, as earlier conveyed to the AS cell by the Petitioner. This was also manifest when he approved an amended draft letter to be sent to the ministry of Law & Justice, wherein the alternatives proposed mentioned that only the application received up to 25/09/2007 would be considered to wrongly benefit the other accused persons/companies. Accused A. Raja approved the issue of this letter, even though, his attention was drawn by the DOT officials to para 3.1.1 of NTP 99 which mandates adequate availability of spectrum for allocating new licenses and TRAI’s repeated recommendations about giving new licenses subject to availability of spectrum for existing operators and for new operators. Accused A. Raja, however, decided to send this letter to the ministry of Law & Justice for its opinion on the various options indicated for allocation of new licenses.
7. Accused A.Raja in conspiracy with the Petitioner
