Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1961
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Surya Pratap Singh
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
CRL.A. Nos. 760 & 767 of 2010
Decided On: 21-08-2014
For the Appellant:Nitya Ramakrishnan, Pranav Proothi, Sarim Naved, Ria Singh Sawhney, Soumya Jha, Snehasish Mukherjee, Saket Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Narender Mann, Spl. PP. with Manoj Pant, Advocate. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for CBI.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the importance of valid sanction orders in corruption cases.
Headnote:
Corruption - Conviction under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 120-B IPC, Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, Sections 417/511 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved irregularities in the recruitment to posts in the Agricultural Research Services (ARS) conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) and the issuance of fake certificates. The accused were convicted for their involvement in the conspiracy and issuance of fraudulent certificates.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence of witnesses and concluded that there was a conspiracy among the accused to issue fraudulent certificates. The court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offenses they were charged with.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy to issue fraudulent certificates and the validity of the sanction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted A-1, A-2, and A-3 based on the lack of conclusive evidence establishing their involvement in the conspiracy and the validity of the sanction order. The court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside. The accused were acquitted, and the trial court record was sent back forthwith.
Introduction
1. These three appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 29th May 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI in CC No. 76 of 2007 convicting the Appellants Chander Kant Verma (A-1), Shakun Grover (A2) and Surya Pratap Singh (A-3) for the offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and additionally convicting A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. A-1 and A-2 were further convicted under Sections 417/511 IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 2nd June 2010 whereby:
(i) All the three Appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two years along with a fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
(ii) A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to RI for one year along with a fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
(iii) A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to RI for two years along with a fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to undergo RI for three months for each of the offences under Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.
(iv) A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to RI for six months along with a fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to undergo RI for three months for the offences under Sections 417/511 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. At the time of admission of the appeals, the sentences awarded to the Appellants were directed to remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeals Genesis of the case
4. The case of the prosecution was that by a letter dated 7th February 2005, the Additional Secretary of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (‘ICAR’), Government of India, requested the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) to conduct an investigation into a complaint concerning irregularities in the recruitment to posts in the Agricultural Research Services (‘ARS’) conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (‘ASRB’) which was also conducting the National Eligibility Test (‘NET’). It was pointed out that the ASRB awards certificates to the successful candidates of the NET. The Central Vigilance Commission (‘CVC’) forwarded to the ASRB an office memorandum (‘OM’) dated 20th February 2003 alleging irregularities in the NET Examination held in 2001 and the issuance of fake certificates. It was pointed out that ASRB had already carried out a preliminary investigation into the case by this time. A detailed background note was enclosed with the letter. Considering that several private persons and parties were involved, the ASRB decided to entrust the investigation to the CBI.
Internal Enquiry by A.S. Bhatia
5. Earlier in time to the above note, the Chairman, ASRB had appointed Mr. A.S. Bhatia, Under Secretary (Engineering) in ICAR (PW-9) to enquire into the case of one candidate, Surya Pratap Singh (A-3), in whose name a NET Certificate was prepared for being issued despite his not taking the NET.
6. In his investigation report dated 4th June 2003, PW-9 first adverted to the procedure involved in the issuance of NET certificates. The applications for the combined examinations of ARS/NET (in this case held in 2001) are segregated centre-wise with the help of Group-D employees. Once the results are declared (May 2002 in this case), the list of successful candidates is made available to the concerned dealing hands who with the help of a Group-D employee or a contractual help segregate the application of successful candidates from the respective bundles of a particular centre. The applications of successful candidates are t
