Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Tejinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 832 of 2019 and Crl.M.A. 33415 of 2019
Decided On : 20-07-2022
PC Act, 1988 - Framing of Charge - Section 12 - [Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] - [Section 12] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and its interpretation in the context of abetment of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 11. The court emphasized that the offence of abetment under Section 12 is distinct from the actual commission of the offence under Sections 7 and 11, and the offer of bribe constitutes abetment irrespective of the actual acceptance of the bribe. The court also highlighted the importance of mens rea of the bribe giver in determining the offence under Section 12. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that at the stage of framing of charge, the probative value of the materials on record should be accepted as true, and quashing of charges should only be done in exceptional cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 for allegedly offering a bribe to the then Chief of Army Staff to clear a file for procurement of Tatra vehicles. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that no offence under Section 12 was made out, citing lack of demand and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and lodging of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order framing charges under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. The court emphasized that the observations made in the judgment were only for deciding the issue of legality of the order framing charge and did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter, which would be determined by the trial court after the conclusion of trial and appreciation of evidence on record.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988, specifically regarding the requirement of demand for abetment, the significance of mens rea in offering a bribe, and the relevance of delay in filing the complaint and lodging of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988, emphasizing that the offence of abetment under Section 12 is distinct from the actual commission of the offence under Sections 7 and 11, and the offer of bribe constitutes abetment irrespective of the actual acceptance of the bribe. The court also highlighted the importance of mens rea of the bribe giver in determining the offence under Section 12. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that at the stage of framing of charge, the probative value of the materials on record should be accepted as true, and quashing of charges should only be done in exceptional cases.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the order framing charges under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. The court clarified that the observations made in the judgment were only for deciding the issue of legality of the order framing charge and did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter, which would be determined by the trial court after the conclusion of trial and appreciation of evidence on record.
JUDGMENT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. This Revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 02.08.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, framing charge against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`hereinafter referred as PC Act, 1988').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant General V.K. Singh, the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS) vide his letters dated 30.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 alleged that during a meeting in his office on 22.09.2010, the petitioner had offered him a bribe of Rs.14 Crore on behalf of one Mr. Ravi Rishi to clear the file for procurement of 1676 HMVs (High Mobility Vehicles) including Tatra vehicles by the first week of October, 2010.
3. Based on the complaints so received, preliminary inquiry being AC-1 2012 A 0003 dated 11.04.2012 came to be registered which was converted into FIR No. RC AC1 2012A0014/CBI/AC-1 dated 19.10.2012 under Section 12 of PC Act, 1988.
4. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet bearing No. 04/2014 was filed by the CBI before the competent court. The Special Judge Patiala House took cognizance of the offence on 28.08.2014. The learned Special Judge, CBI vide impugned order dated 02.08.2019, framed charges under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. It is stated at the Bar that out of 21 witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is in progress.
5. Mr. Siddharth Luthra & Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order on framing of charge is contrary to the settled legal position, inasmuch as no offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 is made out. According to them, keeping in view the language of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 the essential ingredients i.e., demand for the purpose of Sections 7 & 11 of the PC Act, 1988 is necessary and the said ingredient is missing in the instant case. According to them, no demand was ever made and the alleged offer was at best a voluntary act of the petitioner. They also submit that there is an unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and lodging of the FIR. The incident is of 22.09.2010, but the complaint was made on 30.03.2012 and then on 10.04.2012. Based on the same, a preliminary inquiry was lodged on 11.04.2012. They also submit that no audio/video recording of the alleged conversation between the complainant and the petitioner was produced, whereas, the complainant in his statement dated 12.12.2013 claimed that he had recorded the alleged conversation which he had allegedly handed over to the CBI.
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Luthra placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the matters of Ashok Argal v. State, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4788 & Rewati Raman Singh v. State, 2012(127) DRJ 176: 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5407 and Jatinder Pal Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 SCC Online Del 135: 2022(287) DLT 334. He also relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the matter of N.A. Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/0951/2015:2015 SCC OnLine Ker 14979, decision of the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Ganesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Manu/UP/0697/2019 in case No. 6126/2019 and the decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/2028/2019.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Special Judge has wrongly relied on the decision in the matter of R.P. Malik v. State, 2013 SCC onLine Del 2096. The said decision is per incurium in view of overlooking earlier binding precedent of this Court in the matter of Rewati Raman Singh (Supra) & Ashok Argal (Supra).
8. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed an error while placing reliance on Section 116 of the IPC. According to him the offence
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of abetment under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 is distinct from the actual commission of the offence under Sections 7 and 11, an....
The demand and offer of bribe are essential for charging an accused under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and intercepted conversations used as evidence must adhere to the mandated pr....
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The accused public servant’s demand for bribe through a co-accused constituted a prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite being absent during the bribe exchange.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
