Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
P.K. LOHRA, J.
Dr. Ashok Singhvi S/o Dr. A.M. Singhvi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2805 of 2016
Decided on : 23-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Mr. Anil Bhansali.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Vyas, AAG with Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 - Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a)(c) (d) read with 13(2) and 14 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections - 41(1)(b) 121 to 126, 302, 64-A, 382, 392, 120B & 409 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 read with Section 483, 165(3), - 157 , 165, 167 , 156 , 154 , 169 and 170 , 173 ,- Police Act, - Section 44 – Public servant – Attempt to obtains – Further to amend – Abetting Waging of war – Committing depredation – Commits murder – Commits theft – Robbery – Power of High Court – Duty of high court – General dairy - Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and germane to the matter are that petitioner was selected in Indian Administrative Services of 1983 Batch and allotted Rajasthan Cadre. Since inception of his career as a bureaucrat uptil September 2015, spanning service career for about 32 years, he has served the State Government in various capacities. Boosting his honesty, integrity and administrative capabilities, petitioner has pleaded in the petition that during his service tenure he has earned many accolades and his uprightness was acknowledged by Government, his peers and subordinates. It is further averred in the petition that for a short stint from 2012 to 2014 he remained on deputation with Central Government as Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. – Held, Therefore, viewed from any angle, the material available on record, if objectively scrutinized at this juncture, when after completion of investigation charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, while taking note of the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, I am unable to subscribe the view that inherent power is to be exercised in the matter to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Moreover, even if left-handed compliments made on behalf of petitioner to question the action of State, through its investigating agency ACB, are considerately examined, then too sans any cogent material, I am afraid, no case of misuse of process of law to harass him is made out. In totality, exercising inherent powers, at this stage, would stifle a legitimate prosecution.
Petitioner, Dr. Ashok Singhvi, by the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), has prayed for quashing FIR No.251/15, registered at Police Station ACB, District Jaipur, Charge-sheet No.276/2015 and the entire proceedings in Case No.234/15, pending before Sessions Judge (Anti Corruption), Udaipur.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and germane to the matter are that petitioner was selected in Indian Administrative Services of 1983 Batch and allotted Rajasthan Cadre. Since inception of his career as a bureaucrat uptil September 2015, spanning service career for about 32 years, he has served the State Government in various capacities. Boosting his honesty, integrity and administrative capabilities, petitioner has pleaded in the petition that during his service tenure he has earned many accolades and his uprightness was acknowledged by Government, his peers and subordinates. It is further averred in the petition that for a short stint from 2012 to 2014 he remained on deputation with Central Government as Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. At the behest of State Government, he was repatriated to parent cadre in Rajasthan in the year 2014 and after repatriation, he was deputed as Principal Secretary, Mines Department, the department with which he worked earlier for three years from 2005 to 2008. Highlighting his performance in the interregnum period between 2005 to 2008 with the Mines Department, petitioner has averred that he made sincere endeavour for augmenting the revenues of said department, streamlined mineral policy and introduced DMA online system with many innovative ideas in the best interest of department and the State of Rajasthan. While referring to his one year’s second tenure with the Mines Department as Principal Secretary, petitioner has averred in the petition that within a span of one year he inked many MOUs for mineral prospecting and explorations, which paved the way for huge investment in mining and petroleum sectors in Rajasthan.
3. Concentrating on the principal grievances, petitioner has pleaded that abrupt coercive actions taken on 16.09.2015 by the ACB sleuths, when he was returning from Secretariat after attending meeting, and then taking into custody gave him rude shock. As per petitioner’s version, simultaneous actions were undertaken by the ACB officials by seizure of computers, files etc. without any search warrant or authorization. In follow of actions, petitioner was taken to his official residence, already under control of ACB Personnel, and then extensive search operation was carried out to every nook & corner of the residence. The search operation lasted till morning of the next day. Petition also unfurls that finally the petitioner was taken to ACB Headquarters without furnishing him grounds of arrest and sans recording reasons in clear negation of the directions of Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
4. Ventilating his afflictions against the actions of ACB, petitioner has averred in the petition that I.G. (First) ACB, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued warrant of authorization under Section 165(3) Cr.P.C. to Additional S.P. ACB/SIW, Jaipur, without registration of FIR. According to petitioner, in absence of registration of FIR, house search conducted at his official residence, for unearthing acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known source of income and collecting documents in this behalf, is an arbitrary and high handed action by the ACB. The petitioner has also castigated his arrest as arbitrary and colorable exercise of power by the investigating agency.
5. Highlighting the sequence of events with clarity and precision, petitioner further averred in the petition that FIR against him was registered on 19.09.2015 at 06:05 PM, i.e., after 2-3 days from the date of arrest. In the FIR, petitioner is castigated for offence under Sections 7,
