Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, J.
HCL Infosystem Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Nos. 55, 306, 756 and 754 of 2019
Decided On : 23-05-2019
For the Appellant : Somya Chaturvedi, Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Anwag Sharma and Avanist Mishra.
For the Respondents: A.G.A. and Gyan Prakash.
The correctness of the allegations against the accused should be decided only in the trial, and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage.
Headnote:
Criminal Conspiracy - Prevention of Corruption Act - 120B/409/420, I.P.C. and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court discussed the allegations of criminal conspiracy, misappropriation of funds, and violation of tender process under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. Key legal provisions such as the test of prima facie case, sufficiency of evidence, and the court's limited role at the stage of framing charges were highlighted. The court emphasized that the correctness of the allegations against the accused should be decided only in the trial and that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of criminal conspiracy, misappropriation of funds, and violation of tender process under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The accused were charged with facilitating illegal payments, influencing tender processes, and misappropriating funds from the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case was made out against the accused based on the evidence collected during the investigation. The court emphasized that the correctness of the allegations should be decided only in the trial and that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the alleged offences, the role of the court at the stage of framing charges, and the applicability of legal principles in determining the outcome of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the test of prima facie case, the limited role of the court at the stage of framing charges, and the proposition that the correctness of the allegations should be decided only in the trial.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revisions, emphasizing that the impugned orders did not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error. The interim order, if any, was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. Criminal Revision Nos. 55 of 2019 and 306 of 2019 have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), C.B.I. Ghaziabad framing charges in Special Case No. 15/2013 in R.C. No. 1 (A)/2012/C.B.I./SCB/LKO (C.B.I. v. G.K. Batra and others) and the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionists in the aforesaid case.
2. So far as Criminal Revision Nos. 754 of 2019 and 756 of 2019 preferred by co-accused Virendra Goel and Neeraj Upadhyay are concerned, these revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 by which their discharge application has been rejected in the aforementioned case.
3. One of the co-accused G.K. Batra _who was a public servant in M/s. Shreetron India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SIL') died during the pendency of trial, hence, his trial has been ordered to be abated by the trial court.
4. As all the four criminal revisions arise out of common judgment and order of the trial court, hence, they are being heard and decided by this Court vide a common judgment and order.
5. In pursuance of order dated 15.11.2011 of this Court, a preliminary inquiry was conducted which revealed commission of cognizable offences in the purchase/installment of 951 computers and its peripherals and pursuant to the said preliminary inquiry, F.I.R. No. 0532012A0001 dated 2.1.2012 was registered under Section 120B/409, I.P.C. and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against G.K. Batra, Managing Director, Shreetron India Ltd., Virender Goel, proprietor, M/s. Axis Marketing and Neeraj Upadhyay, proprietor, M/s. Radhey Shyam Enterprises and other unknown persons for criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of Rs. 2.94 crores and approximately by showing undue favour to private firms. Charge-sheet No. 01/2012 dated 4.4.2012 was submitted before Special Judge (Central), Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Lucknow against G.K. Batra, Virender Goel and Neeraj Upadhyay under Sections 120B/409/420, I.P.C. and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 20.11.2014, a supplementary charge sheet No. 01/2014 was filed by C.B.I, before Special Judge (NRHM), Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad under Sections 120B/409/420, I.P.C. and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13-(1) (d) of P.C. Act against the revisionist H.C.L. Infosystems Ltd. and/or its employees for being involved in the present crime.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist-company H.C.L. Infosystem Ltd. and Vimal Garg are facing trial in the aforesaid case and after submission of the charge sheet against the revisionists,-an application for discharge was moved on behalf of the revisionists before the trial court and the same was rejected on 28.11.2018 and the trial court framed charges against the revisionists by the impugned order dated 19.12.2018 for the offences in question.
7. Heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionists in Criminal Revision Nos. 55 of 2019 and 306 of 2019, Sri P. Chakravarty, and Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists in Criminal Revision Nos. 754 of 2019 and 756 of 2019, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for C.B.I, and perused the record.
8. Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi", learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that as per the charge-sheet dated 4.4.2012, it is apparent that the allegations levelled pertains to periods prior to floating of the tenders and no accusation has been made either against H.C.L. Infosystems Ltd. and/or its employees. He submitted that the accusations are against G.K. Batra who on 16.7.2009 prior to initiation of tender process is alleged to have verbally ordered his Manager (Accounts) to issue a cheque for making payment of Rs. 20,00,000 to M/s. Axis Marketing w
