Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Alok Kumar S/o Shri Yogeshwar Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Crl. Pet. No. 316 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2024
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION - CORRUPTION AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly Section 17A, which mandates prior approval for investigating public servants in relation to their official duties. The court interpreted this provision as a safeguard against arbitrary investigations, concluding that the lack of such approval rendered the investigation and charge sheet against the petitioner illegal. The court emphasized that the release of the bank guarantee was in accordance with contractual obligations, and no evidence supported the allegations of corruption against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Alok Kumar, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for allegedly abusing his position as a public servant to facilitate corrupt practices in awarding contracts and releasing bank guarantees for M/s GR Infra Projects Limited. The CBI's investigation followed an FIR alleging corruption among NHAI officials, but the petitioner was not named in the FIR. He contended that his actions were in line with his official duties and that the investigation lacked the necessary prior approval as required by law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation against the petitioner was initiated without the required prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which prohibits such actions unless specific conditions are met. The court concluded that the petitioner acted within the scope of his official duties and that the allegations of corruption were not substantiated by evidence.
Issues: Whether the investigation and charge sheet against the petitioner were valid given the lack of prior approval as mandated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether the petitioner had engaged in corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act are crucial in protecting public servants from arbitrary investigations related to their official functions. The absence of prior approval invalidated the investigation against the petitioner, as his actions were found to be in compliance with contractual obligations and did not constitute corruption.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge sheet and all proceedings against Alok Kumar, ruling that the initiation of the investigation was illegal and constituted an abuse of the process of law.
ORDER :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mr. Alok Kumar, praying for quashing of the charge sheet which has been filed in connection with FIR No. RC2162022A0007 and all consequential proceedings therefrom, presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 2, Chandmari at Guwahati.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of instant Criminal Petition, in brief, are as follows:
i. That, on 12.06.2022, an FIR, bearing No. RC2162022A0007 was registered on the basis of a reliable source information under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at the Central Bureau of Investigation, AC-1, New Delhi, against six numbers of named accused persons, namely (1) Shri Dipak Das, (2) Shri Manoj Kumar, (3) Shri Sushil Agarwal, (4) Shri Pankaj Singh, (5) Shri Dilip Rajput, (6) M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited, and (7) Some unknown public servants and private persons.
ii. It has been alleged in the FIR that some of the officials of National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) posted in the North-eastern states are indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in the matter of awarding contract, processing and clearance of bill in lieu of huge bribe in connivance with private contractors.
iii. After receipt of the aforesaid FIR, a team of CBI officials led by Mr. A.K. Maurya, Inspector CBI, AC-1, New Delhi, was constituted. The said team, along with the independent witnesses and the source, reached Khanapara near Health City Hospital, Guwahati at about 7.20 pm.
iv. After a few minutes, in line with the tip received from the source to the effect that Shri Manoj Kumar will come to collect the bribe amount in his car bearing Registration No. JH10AM733, a vehicle came there and after some time a white colour Bolero car bearing Registration No. MN07E0113 also stopped there and one person came down from the said Bolero car, who was identified as Shri Pankaj Charan of M/s GR Infra Project Limited by the source. The said person came near Shri Manoj Kumar and handed over a yellow envelope to him. At that time the CBI officials intercepted and apprehended them.
v. During interrogation, the accused Manoj Kumar confessed of obtaining Rs. 4 lakhs from the accused Pankaj Charan. He also disclosed that out of the Rs. 4 lakhs received he will get only Rs. 50,000/- and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 3,50,000/- was obtained for one Shri Deepak Das.
vi. During investigation, it was revealed that on 10.09.2015 a tender was awarded to M/s GR Infra Project Limited by National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) for the project “rehabilitation and upgradation of existing roads to two lanes with paved shoulders configuration in Jowai-Meghalaya-Assam Border sections from NH-44 from km 69.200 to km 173.200 in the state of Meghalaya”, on Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) mode under NHDP Phase-3 for the contract price of Rs.468,27,00,000/- (Rs. 468.27 crores).
vii. As per stipulated terms and conditions of the aforesaid work, M/s GR Infra Project Limited submitted two bank guarantees worth Rs. 11,46,81,000/- and Rs. 2,58,00,000/- with NHAI as performance security.
viii. The petitioner Shri Alok Kumar, who was posted and was working as Regional Officer, National Highway Authority of India, Regional Office Guwahati was arrested in connection with this case on 14.06.2022 on the allegations that he abused his official position as public servant and entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons for ensuring favourable reports from the Authority’s Engineer of EGIS India Consulting Engineers Private Limited and timely release of bank guarantees by suppressing the questionable report of the consulta
AI
The court established that prior approval is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the alleged offenses relate to their official duties, and failure ....
The court held that prior approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unnecessary in cases involving direct allegations of corrupt conduct by public officials.
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval for investigations into offenses by public servants only when those offenses are related to their official functions, and such ap....
Point of law: when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved., no infererwe can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court s....
Point of Law : Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, High Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegations made in complaint or documents accompanying same per se....
The court ruled that allegations in an FIR must disclose a prima facie case for investigation, and mere recovery of cash without evidence linking the accused to a bribery transaction does not suffice....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
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
