Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Amit Sarkar, S/o. Late Arun Sarkar and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.74 Of 2018, WP(C) No.60 Of 2018, AB No.32 Of 2018
Decided On : 26-02-2024
Vigilance Commission - Jurisdiction - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 477A, 8, 9, 13(1)(c)(d)&(2) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the jurisdiction of the State Vigilance Commission and the powers conferred under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It highlighted the statutory developments and the transfer of investigations to the Lokayukta as per the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017. The court also emphasized the recommendatory nature of the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta and the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the recommendations.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was filed alleging involvement of private individuals and government officials in an offense related to the release of funds under the Forward Linkage Scheme for setting up an MRI Unit. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the State Vigilance Commission to carry out the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Nagaland State Vigilance Commission had the jurisdiction to investigate the allegations. It also highlighted the statutory developments and the transfer of investigations to the Lokayukta as per the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017. The court emphasized the recommendatory nature of the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta and the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the recommendations.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the State Vigilance Commission, the transfer of investigations to the Lokayukta, and the powers and obligations of the Lokayukta and the competent authority under the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Nagaland State Vigilance Commission had the jurisdiction to investigate the allegations. It emphasized the recommendatory nature of the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta and the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the recommendations.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions and the bail application, emphasizing the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the recommendations of the Lokayukta. It observed that the power conferred under the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 is recommendatory in nature and the reports submitted by the Lokayukta can only be brought to a logical conclusion by the competent authority as per the provisions of the law.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel for the appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional A.G., Nagaland, appearing for the respondent State and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.
2. All the 3(three) proceedings are taken up together for disposal taking into account similarity of the facts and issues involved.
3. From the materials on record it reveals that an FIR was filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Nagaland on 21.08.2017 alleging inter alia that from a preliminary investigation conducted by Shri B. Phongtau Phom, Dy. S.P., it was seen that there was an involvement of private individuals as well as Government officials in the commission of offence. It is further seen from the said FIR that on the basis of a preliminary investigation prima facie evidence have been established that a total amount of Rs. 16,23,00,000/- (rupees sixteen crores twenty three lakhs) were released under the Forward Linkage Scheme by setting up of MRI Unit at NHAK, Rs. 15,49,40,000/- (rupees fifteen crore forty-nine lakh and forty thousand) was paid to M/S Kodonyi Enterprises (for short ‘the enterprise in question’) in two installments, i.e. on 22.03.2013 and on 03.10.2013 and the remaining amount of Rs. 73,60,000/- (rupees seventy three lakh sixty thousand) was paid to the Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Kohima, being the VAT on 22.03.2013. It has been further mentioned that the Budgetary Quote from SIEMENS for the machine with 22 supporting accessories, local accessories and installation was Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (rupees five crores) whereas the bill submitted by the enterprise in question for the cost of the MRI machine including transportation and installation charges, its accessories including installation charges, Civil Works including transportation and installation charges, Office furniture including transportation and installation charges and Silent Diesel Generator including transportation, civil works and installation charges was Rs. 16,23,00,000/- (rupees sixteen crores and twenty three thousand) inclusive of Rs. 73,60,000/- (seventy three lakhs sixty thousand) VAT. It further reveals from the preliminary investigation that the total numbers of the equipment alongwith the accessories and installations would have been Rs. 4,68,00,000/- (rupees four crores sixty eight lakhs) which includes the cost of transportation from China to Mumbai. However, the enterprise submitted a bill of Rs. 7,60,00,000/- (rupees seven crores sixty lakhs) for the cost of MRI machine including transportation and installation, Rs. 1,50,00,000/-(rupees one crore fifty lakhs) for the optional/non-optional SIEMENS items including transportation and installation charges. It is further mentioned in the said FIR that an amount of Rs. 4,42,00,000/- (rupees four crore forty two lakhs) was claimed by the enterprise in excess of the total amount. Further to that, the total cost of Civil Works including transportation and installation charges was Rs. 1,61,40,000/- (rupees one crore sixty one lakh and forty thousand) which required physical verification of the Technical Wing and the cost of comprehensive warranty of the machine for a period of 5 years @Rs. 82,00,000/-(rupees eighty two lakh) per year i.e Rs. 4,10,00,0000/- (rupees four crore ten lakhs) required proper clarification from the contractor.
3. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered under Section 120B read with 409/420/465/477A of the IPC and Section 8/9/13(1)(c)(d)&(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) and the same was endorsed to the Additional S.P., Vigilance & Anti-Corruption for investigation. This initiation of investigation by the Nagaland State Vigilance Commission had been challenged in the instant proceedings on the ground that the State Vigilance Commission would have no jurisdiction to carry out any enqu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recommendatory nature of the powers conferred upon the Lokayukta and the obligations of the competent authority to take action based on the rec....
The Lokayukta was barred from conducting a preliminary enquiry on the complaint of overstay in service under Section 9(1)(a) and Clause-(d) to the Second Schedule of the Act.
While an investigative body may possess jurisdiction to report on corruption in service appointments, any subsequent disciplinary action against public servants requires adherence to the principles o....
A quasi-judicial authority must observe natural justice by sharing complaint copies with affected parties. Investigating service-related allegations requires strict adherence to statutory limitation ....
Point of law : Report of the Upa-lokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of th....
Compliance with statutory procedures is mandatory; failure to adhere to outlined procedures vitiates legal proceedings and investigations.
Object of PC Act is to consolidate and amend law relating to prevention of corruption and matter connected thereto, thereby strengthening of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta is inevitable and “it is high ....
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
