Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Abhishek Sharma - Petitioner
Vs.
Sate of H.P. - Respondent
Cr.M.M.O. No. 17 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General
Point of Law: Object of Prevention of Corruption Act is to protect honest and upright public officers and to ensure that they are unnecessarily not dragged into litigation.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, A, 17A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Demand of bribe - Quash Fir - Petition seeks quashing of FIR – Respondent gathered prima-facie evidence that petitioner was taking undue advantage from others in performing his public duties - Para 4(iii).
Finding of the Court:
Evidence collected by respondent during personal search of petitioner and co-accused persons, documents and other recoveries made from vehicles used by accused persons also suggested demand of bribe by petitioner - As per status report, respondent has also investigated many persons whose names figured in files recovered from three vehicles - Many of them have statedly disclosed that co-accused persons had presented themselves as authorized Transport service providers - Statements of these persons have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C - Investigation in matter is stated to be complete - As per status report, final police report is being prepared for its presentation in Court - A source report of public with general allegations of illegal, improper exercise of powers, in violation of prescribed procedure, by taking bribes through touts by Motor Vehicle Inspectors deployed in District Mandi, was enquired into - Evidence that came to fore in this investigation was considered sufficient to lodge FIR - Prayer of petitioner for quashing of FIR on ground that requisite prior approval under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act was not obtained, sans merits.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Petitioner is a Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) in the office of Regional Transport Authority, District Bilaspur, H.P. He is co-accused in FIR No. 5 of 2021, dated 28.11.2021, registered by the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act). In the instant petition, he seeks quashing of this FIR.
2. As per the respondent, following facts led to registration of the FIR :-
2(i) On 26.11.2021, a source report from general public Mandi was received in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB), Mandi that post of MVI was lying vacant in District Mandi. MVI from other district was being deputed in District Mandi for passing of vehicles and driving tests. It was alleged that MVI was passing the vehicles without following proper procedure and also taking bribes through touts.
2(ii) A team of officials of SV&ACB Mandi proceeded to Kansa ground, Dador on 27.11.2021, where exercise of passing of vehicles was being carried out. The team found three vehicles bearing registration Nos. HP-67-8900 (of petitioner), HP-65-8784 and HR-05Y-4392, on the spot. Two persons (co accused Pritam Kumar and Vinod Kumar) were seen carrying files in these vehicles. A lot of people were seen gathered around the vehicles. The team noticed that petitioner was being assisted by co-accused persons, who were not government servants. The co-accused persons were seen collecting the files from people gathered there for passing of vehicles and carrying them to the petitioner. The petitioner was also found to have deputed another private person for making necessary entry in the vehicles passing register.
2(iii) The above working style and activities of the petitioner and co-accused persons made the police officials suspicious. The three vehicles found on spot departed at different times. Due to this reason, only one vehicle numbered HP-65-8784 could be followed by the team. While chasing the car, the officials stopped near Lake View Point BBMB Lake, Sundernagar, District Mandi at 6.00 p.m. Petitioner’s vehicle No.HP-67-8900 and the other vehicle numbered HR-05Y-4392 were already parked there. On the spot, all the vehicles were checked from outside and inside. Personal search of the petitioner and co-accused persons was also carried out. During personal search, Rs. 2,000/- from the petitioner, Rs. 45,300/- from co-accused Pritam Kumar and Rs. 40,320/- from co-accused Vinod Kumar were recovered. An amount of Rs. 25,500/- was found kept inside the files placed on the rear seat of vehicle No. HP-65-8784. 46 files relating to vehicles, 24 registration certificates, 3 driving licences and a rubber stamp of SDM Sarkaghat, District Mandi were recovered from vehicle No. HP-65-8784. 6 files of vehicles were recovered during the search of vehicle No. HR-05Y-4392. 13 files and one vehicles passing entry register were recovered from vehicle No. HP67-8900. According to the respondents, the petitioner and co-accused persons could not give satisfactory answers to the inquiries made by the police officials about the recovery of amount during their personal search and also about the files and documents recovered from their vehicles.
2(iv) As per the respondent, recovery of money, files and documents from the vehicles not only of the petitioner, but also from the other co-accused persons, who were seen aiding the petitioner during and after passing of the vehicles was suggestive of the fact that there was an implied demand of bribe impugning the conduct of the petitioner, hence FIR was registered.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is accused of commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The impugned acts were allegedly carried out by the petitioner in discharge of his official duties. The actions questioned included decisions taken and recommendations made by the petitioner
