Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kait, J.
Renubala Pradhan - Appellants
Vs.
CBI - Respondent
Crl. M.C. 2251/2017
Decided On : 29-01-2020
For the Appellant :Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate, Amit Tiwari, Aditya Raj and Adarsh Verma, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mridul Jain, Spl. PP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention (mens rea) to constitute offences under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Conspiracy - Prevention of Corruption Act - [Section 120-B IPC, Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act] - The court discussed the allegations of criminal conspiracy and false claims made by the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions related to criminal conspiracy, fraudulent claims, and the essential elements of the offences under the mentioned sections. The court's decision was influenced by the absence of mens rea and the lack of evidence establishing a conspiracy, leading to the quashing of the FIR and emanating proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Member of Parliament, was accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy and making false claims for reimbursement of air travel expenses. The allegations included submitting forged and inflated tickets for reimbursement, causing a loss to the Rajya Sabha. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that she had no knowledge of the submission of forged tickets and had reimbursed the amount to the travel agency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. It emphasized the absence of mens rea and the inadvertent nature of the excess claims made. The court also noted the similarity of the case with previous cases where the closure reports were filed, leading to the quashing of the FIR and emanating proceedings.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged criminal conspiracy, fraudulent claims, and the petitioner's knowledge and intention regarding the submission of forged tickets for reimbursement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of mens rea and the lack of evidence establishing a conspiracy. It emphasized the essential elements of the offences under the relevant legal provisions and the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention to constitute the offences.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and emanating proceedings, citing the absence of mens rea and the inadvertent nature of the excess claims made by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Suresh Kait, J.
1. Present petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of summoning order dated 27.07.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) (CBI) 06, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information, respondent registered an FIR bearing RC No. 04(A)/2014 dated 12.06.2014 under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against petitioner and some unknown persons. Pursuant to completion of investigation, respondent filed charge sheet concluding that no offence has been committed by petitioner, who consequently was kept in column 12 therein. Investigation revealed commission of offence as mentioned above by Mr. Subodh Mishra, Mr. Rajesh Agnihotri, the Director of M/s. Vandana Air Travels Pvt. Ltd. and the company. However, learned Special Judge while rejecting the closure report, took cognizance under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, against petitioner also besides other charge sheeted persons
3. It is submitted by counsel for Petitioner that she is a social worker and worked as President, Zila Parishad, Ganjam District, Odisha from 1997-2002. Thereafter, she worked as Member of Zila Parishad, Ganjam Distt., Odisha from 2002-2007. In April, 2008, she was elected Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha from State of Odisha under candidature of Biju Janta Dal. During her tenure in Rajya Sabha, she has been Member of several committees. Petitioner's tenure in the Rajya Sabha expired in April, 2014. Being Member of Parliament and member of several important parliamentary committees, she has played significant role in development of the country in general and her state in particular. She is recognized in her state as a leader having deep roots in society. She is seen as a political worker with dignity, integrity, honesty and intellect.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that every Member of Rajya Sabha is entitled to 34 free air travel journeys during one financial year and also unlimited air travels for official work. Out of these 34 journeys, spouse or companion of a member is entitled to travel eight alone journeys in a year. For reimbursement of expenditure incurred by a member upon said air travels, the Member has to submit TA Claims enclosing details of journey in prescribed arrival/departure report, air-tickets and boarding passes. E-tickets submitted by members are to be counter-signed by them. Concerned department after scrutiny and procedure established by law, approves the TA claims and reimburses the amount by directly crediting in bank account of the member.
5. In terms of the guidelines/protocol, the Members of Parliament have privileges as protocol at the airport by virtue of which they are not required to stand for their ticket and boarding passes required for performing their journey. Companion family members travelling with petitioner also enjoy these privileges. Formalities of obtaining boarding passes for passenger and his companion are done by protocol official with assistance of travel agent.
6. Learned senior counsel further submits that the nature of work requires petitioner to frequently travel and visit several places. She had to perform several functions including booking of air tickets etc., for which she required assistance of her Private Secretary. She had been elected as Member of Parliament for the first time and had no social circle in Delhi. Upon enquiry from fellow member, petitioner learnt that one Mr. Subodh Mishra who is working in the parliament since 1992 has in depth knowledge about all procedural aspect and handles travelling arrangement of many Members of Parliament. Accordingly, Mr
