Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2463
High Court of Delhi
SUNIL GAUR, J.
Ankur Chawla & Another
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Others
Crl.M.C. No. 2455 of 2012 & Crl. Rev.P. No. 385 of 2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 8318 & 8308 of 2014
Decided on: 20-11-2014
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b)
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.12, S.13, S.7
Headnote
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 12, Section 7, Section 13 - The court discussed the acts and sections referenced in the judgment, highlighting the admissibility of electronic records and the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the audio and video CDs. The court concluded that a prima facie case was not made out against the petitioners, quashing the impugned order as it pertained to the petitioners only.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were called upon to face trial for abetting the acceptance of illegal gratification. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners conspired to pay a bribe to influence a favorable order in a legal matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the audio and video CDs, relied upon by the prosecution, were inadmissible as evidence due to the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As a result, the court concluded that a prima facie case was not made out against the petitioners.
Issues: The admissibility of electronic records, the sufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case, and the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the audio and video CDs rendered them inadmissible as evidence. As a result, a prima facie case was not made out against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed as it pertained to the petitioners only, with a clarification that any observation in the judgment had no bearing on the merits of the co-accused.
For the Petitioners:Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate, with Amit Mahajan, Amit Sharma, Kalyani Lal, Bhanoo Sood, Karan Kumar Gogna & Yogesh Kumar Dahiya, N. Hariharan Sr.Advocate, with Puneet Mittal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for CBI & Satyendera Kumar, Advocate.
1. In the above captioned two petitions, the challenge is to common impugned order of 22nd May, 2012 vide which petitioners have been called upon to face the trial in CC No. 30/2012 -RC No. 3(A)/2009-CBI/ACU-IX New Delhi the matter of State (CBI) vs. R Vasudevan & ORs.
2. The precise Charge against petitioners is that during the period of October/November, 2009 petitioners herein had abetted co-accused-R.Vasudevan to accept illegal gratification of Rupees Ten Lacs for passing favourable order in favour of Atul Maheshwari (since expired) in Amar Ujala case. Petitioner-Vikas Shukla is said to have delivered Rupees Ten Lacs to co-accused Manoj Kumar Banthia on the directions of petitioner-Ankur Chawla at Room No. 606, Hotel Sheraton, New Delhi. Petitioner-Ankur Chawla is said to have conspired in commission of offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The factual background of this case as spelt out in the impugned judgment needs to be noticed for a proper understanding of this case. The facts of this case, as culled out from the impugned order, are as under:-
"2. It has been alleged in the FIR that accused Manoj Kumar Banthia on being approached by accused Ankur Chawla for one of parties in dispute of Amar Ujala Group, got in touch with accused R.Vasudevan for getting a favourable order in the matter pending before accused R. Vasudevan. It is also alleged that accused R.Vasudevan, Chairman, Company Law Board had demanded and agreed to accept an illegal gratification of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lacs only) from accused Manoj Kumar Banthia, Company secretary for showing favour in the matter. It is also alleged that accused Manoj Kumar Banthia, in turn demanded Rs.10 lakhs from accused Ankur Chawla who approached accused Manoj Kumar Banthia for this purpose and was appearing before CLB on behalf of one of the parties in the Amar Ujala matter.
3. Further investigation by CBI had revealed that as part of conspiracy it was decided amongst accused no. 3 Ankur Chawla, Manoj Banthia and R. Vasudevan that the illegal gratification of Rs.10 lacs was to be paid to accused Manoj Kumar Banthia who would then pay Rs.7 lacs to accused R.Vasudevan, at his residence in Andrews Ganj, New Delhi for showing favour to the party being represented by accused Ankur Chawla in this matter.
4. Further investigation by CBI also revealed that accused R.Vasudevan had joined service on 12.05.1976 as Sr. Technical Assistant in the Department of Company Affairs, Chennai. After his voluntary retirement taken on 04.08.2009 he had joined as Member, Company Law Board w.e.f 05.08.2009. His duties as such, were to decide the cases, filed by parties in the Company Law Board, relating to disputes between Directors of Companies. He was also looking into the disputed matter relating to permission for change of registered office from one state to another and compounding of offences under the Companies Act, 1956. Investigation has revealed that he knew accused Manoj Kumar Banthia, Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary, of Kolkata for the last five years when accused R.Vasudevan was the Director in the Ministry of Company Affairs and accused Manoj Kumar Banthia used to visit his office for official purpose.
5. Investigation has further revealed that accused Manoj Kumar Banthia is a practicing Company Secretary and had started his practice in the name of M/s Manoj Banthia and Associates in Kolkata. He is also associated with M/s Vinod Kothari and Company, Kolkata on assignment basis. He was regularly appearing before Company Law Board at Delhi and at Kolkata. He came in contact with accused R.Vasudevan in 2004-05 as he often came to New Delhi in connection with his official work. During those days, whenever he visited New Delhi, he made courtesy visits on accused R.Vasudevan at his office in Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. As a result of which he had developed good relations with accused R. Vasudevan. In the year 2005, accused R.Vasudevan was
