Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Talwant Singh, J.
Soma Enterprise Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
W.P.(Cr) 1800 of 2022
Decided On : 31-05-2023
Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arunabh Chowdhari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manu Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Mr. Kartik Khanna, Mr. Abhyuday Sharma, Mr. Kartikay Masta, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar & Mr. Madhulak Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP/CBI, with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Abhishek Batra and Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and arguments before framing charges in a bribery case, especially when contradictory allegations are present.
Headnote:
Bribery - Writ Petition - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 120B, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12 - The court set aside the order framing charge against the petitioner company, M/s Soma Enterprise Ltd., due to contradictory allegations in the main charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet filed against another accused, Mr. L.P. Padhy, for offering the same bribe amount through the same conduit to the same complainant. The court directed the learned Special Judge to consider both charge sheets and arguments on all grounds raised before the court and pass a detailed reasoned order on charge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company, M/s Soma Enterprise Ltd., was involved in a case where allegations of bribery were made against officials of another company, M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. The CBI registered a case against the petitioner company under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, and separate substantive charge under Section 9 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged the order framing charge against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the supplementary charge sheet filed by CBI against another accused, Mr. L.P. Padhy, had a direct bearing on the charge framed against the petitioner company. The court noted contradictory allegations in the main charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet, and directed the learned Special Judge to consider both charge sheets and arguments on all grounds raised before the court and pass a detailed reasoned order on charge.
Issues: The main issue was the contradictory allegations in the main charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet, and the impact of the supplementary charge sheet on the charge framed against the petitioner company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the order framing charge against the petitioner company due to contradictory allegations in the main charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet filed against another accused, Mr. L.P. Padhy, for offering the same bribe amount through the same conduit to the same complainant. The court directed the learned Special Judge to consider both charge sheets and arguments on all grounds raised before the court and pass a detailed reasoned order on charge.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order framing charge against the petitioner company, M/s Soma Enterprise Ltd., and directed the learned Special Judge to consider both charge sheets and arguments on all grounds raised before the court and pass a detailed reasoned order on charge.
JUDGMENT
Talwant Singh, J.
1. The petitioner company has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the `Code'), invoking the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court and has made the following prayer:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction calling for the records of the case in CBI Case No.25/2019 titled State vs. Dheeraj Kumar and Ors. pending before the Court of Shri Balwant Rai Bansal, Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-17, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi and after perusing the same, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside/quash the order framing charge dated 02.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-P/1) read with the Order dated 14.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-P/2) passed by the Court of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in CBI Case No. 25/2019 arising out of FIR RC No. 01(A)/2019/AC-III/New Delhi, under Section 120B read with Sections 7A/8/9/10 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and separate charge for the offences punishable under Sections 9 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the Petitioner and all proceedings emanating thereunder in respect of the Petitioner M/s Soma Enterprise Ltd.; and
b) Pass any such other similar order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the interest of justice."
2. In brief facts, it is mentioned that a Preliminary Enquiry (herein after referred to as `PE') was registered against a company named M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd., bearing No. PE2172018A0002/CBI/ACU-V/AC-II/New Delhi on 29.11.2018, in which one of the allegation was regarding paying bribes to Government officials during execution of two projects of National Highway Authority of India (herein after referred to as `NHAI'). The parent company, M/s Isolux Corsan (a Spanish Company) had become bankrupt in Spain and all the offices in India of the said company and its Indian subsidiary were closed, so a notice was issued to the petitioner company to provide certain details as it had two joint ventures (JVs) with the said company.
2.1 There were allegations against the said company and a complaint was received from Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), that formed the basis of the PE, which was marked to Shri Kuldeep Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI/ACU-VI/AC-II, New Delhi, for enquiry. The said IO, on 17.01.2019, issued a notice to the present petitioner in respect of the said enquiry and called for certain documents along with details of the officials of the petitioner company, who were dealing with M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and with NHAI officials.
2.2 The petitioner company and M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. had entered into two joint ventures regarding Kishangarh-Ajmer-Beawar project in the State of Rajasthan and Surat-Hazira Port project in the State of Gujarat. The petitioner company authorised Mr. P.R. Rao, Vice-President, to represent the company before the Investigating Officer, CBI, New Delhi, vide authorisation letter dated 29.04.2019. On 30.04.2019, Mr. P.R. Rao replied to the letter of the Investigating Officer dated 17.01.2019 and supplied the requisite documents and details. Again on 14.06.2019, a letter was addressed by SI Kuldeep Singh (IO) of CBI to the petitioner and the authorised signatory of the company was requested to appear before the IO. The authorised signatory of the petitioner company again supplied the requisite details to the IO vide letter dated 18.06.2019. Thereafter, no further communication was received from the IO, CBI, New Delhi. On 12.07.2019, Mr. P.R. Rao appeared before the CBI officer and he was examined.
3. It is further the case of the CBI that on 11.09.2019, a complaint was received from Mr. Asra Garg, Head of Branch/DIG, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, to
