Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Rajesh Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 241/2011 with Cr. Appeals No. 248 and 249/2011
Decided on : 18-07-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jamuna, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, in all the appeals.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 13(2) - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - IRREGULARITY IN ACCORDING SANCTION - EFFECT - FAILURE OF JUSTICE - SECTION 19(1)(C) - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - REMOVAL FROM OFFICE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of cheating and corruption against three accused, Rajesh Gupta, V.S. Mehta, and Diwan Chand. The prosecution alleged that the accused had conspired to defraud the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the United India Insurance Company of Rs.12,38,657/- by paying a commission of 10% on the premium of Rs.1,23,86,570/- to Diwan Chand for arranging the insurance cover. The accused were convicted by the trial court under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also rejected the arguments of the accused that the sanction for prosecution was not valid and that the trial court had erred in convicting them. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid as it was granted by the competent authority, and that the accused had not suffered any failure of justice due to any irregularity in the sanction.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid? 2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid as it was granted by the competent authority, which was the authority competent to remove the accused from his office. The court relied on Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which provides that the authority competent to accord sanction to launch prosecution is the authority which is competent to remove him from his office. 2. The court held that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused as the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court considered the evidence on record, including the testimonies of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the statements of the accused, and found that the accused had conspired to defraud the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the United India Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and upheld their conviction under Sections 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Since all the appeals arise from the same judgment and common questions of law and facts are involved, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The present appeals have been instituted against Judgment dated 30.6.2011 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla in Sessions Trial CC No. 3-S/7 of 2006, whereby appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. Substantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Rajesh Gupta and V.S. Mehta were working as Divisional Manager and Administrative Officer in the United India Insurance Company Limited. Government of Himachal Pradesh had taken a group personnel insurance policy (Ext. PW-31/U) from United India Insurance Company Limited for its 1,50,000 employees at the rate of Rs.2,00,000 per employee from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005. Total premium paid to the insurance company was Rs.1,36,50,000/-. Government of Himachal Pradesh had not taken services of a broker/agent for arranging insurance cover. Notice inviting quotations was issued to the public/private sector insurance companies. Twelve insurance companies including four public sector insurance companies had submitted quotations. Though the quotation of private sector company was found to be lowest but at the instance of NGO Federation, government had decided to allot the work to the public sector insurance companies. United India Insurance Company had negotiated with other three public sector insurance companies (National Insurance Company, New India Assurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company) and was nominated leader. Premium was to be shared in the ratio of 40:20:20:20 between the United India Insurance Company and three other insurance Companies. Accused Diwan Chand was working as an agent of United India Insurance Company. He had not dealt with the Government at any stage. Accused No.2 and 3 namely Rajesh Gupta and V.S. Mehta had paid 10% commission amounting to Rs.12,38,657/- on the premium of Rs.1,23,86,570/- to Diwan chand. Cheque in the sum of Rs.10,50,935/- Ext. PW-4/F was prepared by PW-7 Sushil Bhardwaj. The cheque was submitted to Sh. T.B. Negi, Assistant Manager. Shri T.B. Negi had signed the cheque. Since the amount of the cheque exceeded the authority of Sh. T.B. Negi, he made reference Ext. PW-7/A-1 dated 6.1.2005 to the Regional Office for second signatory of competent jurisdiction. V.S. Mehta had taken the cheque as also the reference from Shri T.B. Negi. Later, V.S. Mehta had signed the cheque as second signatory and had handed over the same to Diwan Chand. Diwan Chand presented the cheque with Canara Bank Branch Shimla on 6.1.2005. Amount of Rs.10,50,935/- was credited to account No. 4688 of the accused Diwan Chand on 7.1.2005 after deducting Rs.1,87,722/- as tax deducted at source. Accused No.1, 2 and 3 had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the United India Insurance Company of Rs.12,38,657/-. V.S. Mehta had obtained blank cheques of his account No. 4688 from Diwan Chand. Blank cheques were encashed. FIR was registered. Matter was investigated by PW-40. Accused Rajesh Gupta had defrauded three other Insurance Companies of an amount of Rs.2,47,731/-. Admitted specimen signatures and handwritings of the accused were obtained by PW- 40. These were sent to PW-23, T. Joshi. Sanction was obtaine
