Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1881
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Rajeev Kumar Goyal @ Raj Kumar Goyal & Others
Versus
State Through C.B.I
CRL.A. Nos. 265, 266, 269, 270 of 2008
Decided on : 08-08-2014
For the Appellant:R.K. Kohli, Mohit Mathur, Shahrukh Hussain, Badar Mehmood, Varun Tankha, Devendra Dedha, R.K. Handoo with Yogesh Sharma, Harsh Vardhan Sharma with Rakesh Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Manoj Ohri, Special Public Prosecutor.
The misjoinder of charges is not a curable irregularity if it results in a failure of justice.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - INSURANCE - MARINE CLAIMS - PROCESSING PROCEDURE - INVESTIGATION OF FICTITIOUS CLAIMS - MISJOINDER OF CHARGES - HANDING OVER OF FILES BY VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT - ROLE OF EACH ACCUSED - SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Seven fictitious marine claims were settled by the Kapashera branch of National Insurance Company Ltd. (NIC) in an illegal manner. The claims were processed by Branch Manager L.K. Gupta without involving other subordinate staff in violation of established procedures. The Vigilance Department of NIC conducted an inquiry and seized the claim files. The CBI took over the investigation and filed a chargesheet against Gupta and three others for criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and other offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Gupta was involved in the conspiracy or that he had abused his official position as a public servant to pass the claims. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the other three accused for the offenses charged.
Issues: 1. Whether the misjoinder of charges resulted in a failure of justice. 2. Whether the Vigilance Department's failure to preserve the seized files in a tamper-proof environment prejudiced the accused. 3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of each of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the misjoinder of charges was not a curable irregularity and that it did not result in a failure of justice. The court found that the accused knew what they were being tried for and that they were given a full and fair chance to defend themselves. 2. The court held that the Vigilance Department's failure to preserve the seized files in a tamper-proof environment did not prejudice the accused. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the files were tampered with and that the accused were able to defend themselves adequately. 3. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the other three accused for the offenses charged. The court found that the evidence showed that the accused were involved in a conspiracy to defraud NIC and that they had committed the offenses charged.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by Gupta and acquitted him of all charges. The court disposed of the appeals filed by the other three accused and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines.
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 3rd March 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) in CC No. 31/07 convicting:
(i) All the Appellants under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’);
(ii) Appellant L.K. Gupta for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act;
(iii) Appellants Sanjay Raina, Rajeev Kumar Goyal and Deepak Handa (A-2 to A-4) for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 5th March 2008 whereby:
(i) Appellant L.K. Gupta was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for one year and RI for one year and a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with both the sentences being directed to run concurrently.
(ii) Appellant Sanjay Raina was sentenced to RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000 and in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 420 IPC and an identical sentence for the offences under Sections 467 read with Section 471 IPC and 468 read with Section 471 and RI for one year for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all sentences being directed to run concurrently.
(iii) Appellant Rajeev Kumar Goyal was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for each of the offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC and Section 468 read with Section 471 IPC and RI for one year under Section 120 B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all the sentences being directed to run concurrently.
(iv) Appellant Deepak Handa was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for each of the offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC and Section 468 read with Section 471 IPC and RI for one year under Section 120 B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all the sentences directed to run concurrently.
3. At the time of admission of appeals on 31st March 2008, this Court suspended the sentences awarded to each of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals subject to terms. The Court s informed that the fine amounts have already been paid by the Appellants.
Procedure for processing marine claims
4. Before discussing the particular facts of these cases it is necessary to understand how the marine open policy comes to be issued. When goods are transported from one destination to another, the goods are insured for the period during which they are being transported and till they are delivered at the destination. The consignor is usually the person selling the goods and the consignee is the purchaser of the goods. The premium could be paid for, depending on the terms of purchase, by either the consignor or the consignee. The marine open policy covers internal transport of goods by road as well. A cover note is issued by a clerk in the insurance company who is authorised to do so. At that stage the insurer usually submits the proposal and requisite documents. After collection of the premium amount, the policy cover note is issued. When goods are either stolen during transit or damaged or failed to be delivered, a claim is lodged with the branch which issued the policy. The insured gives intimation to the NIC and the Branch Manager appoints a Surveyor, from the approved list for that branch, to assess the loss. The Surveyor then submits a report along with photographs, the proposal certificate and th
