IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW)
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Aman Shah & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
State Thru. Cbi/Ac-1, New Delhi - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 Nos. 3601, 3602, 3603 of 2023
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (a), (b) & (d) – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 228 and 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120-B - Criminal Conspiracy – Charged - Applications for discharge - Challenging order of rejection - Applicants, stating that an information was received from reliable source that, Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Kanpur is leading an organized and systematic collection of illegal gratification in lieu of various official acts in connection with matters pertaining to Central Excise Department in his jurisdiction - Superintendents , (the applicants) and Office Staff, all public servants subordinate to, are part of this organized and systematic collection of illegal gratification and they contact various private parties either directly or through middleman for extorting and putting pressure for payment of illegal gratification - Amount of illegal gratification made by private parties to above mentioned public servants were being transferred systematically through hawala channel to Delhi through for parking and further delivering it ., wife was in habit of taking periodic updates from his Superintendents (the applicants) regarding receipt of illegal gratification from various private parties - Whether directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act - When the Review Committee is of opinion that the directions are not in accordance with provisions referred to above it may set aside the directions and orders for destruction of copies of the intercepted message or class of messages. [Para 10]
Finding of Court : Law regarding approach to be adopted by court while considering an application for discharge of accused persons under Section 227 and approach while framing charges under Section 228 of Code, is that while considering an application for discharge of accused under Section 227 of Code - Aforesaid case was decided on basis of its peculiar facts, which were different from present case, where call interception is not only evidence and C.B.I. has collected other evidence also, including evidence of account of payment of bribe money regularly maintained by a co-accused in a pen drive - Court is not required to go into correctness of allegations and that will be done by Trial Court after parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective case - What prima facie appears from material placed before court at this stage is that allegations levelled against applicants in charge sheet submitted by C.B.I. after carrying out investigation, prima facie indicate commission of cognizable offences, which need to be tried by Court - Court finds no illegality in order dated passed by trial Court rejecting application for discharge of applicants and order dated framing charges as also in proceedings against applicants being continued in pursuance of charges framed against him.
Result : Applications dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pranjal Krishna and Sri Samarth Agarwal Advocates, the learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. These three applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by three similarly situate applicants, challenging the order of rejection of their applications for discharge, the order framing charges against them and the criminal proceedings against them, on same grounds, hence these are being decided together.
3. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 21.09.2019, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I. (Central), Lucknow rejecting separate applications filed by all the accused persons for their discharge in Criminal Case No.1326 of 2018; C.B.I. Vs. Sansar Chand and others, along with the order dated 22.10.2019 framing charges under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive charges of Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (a), (b) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the entire criminal prosecution against the applicant arising out of cognizance order dated 04.08.2018.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Central Bureau of Investigation lodged a First Information Report on 02.02.2018 in Police Station C.B.I./AC-I, New Delhi against ten named accused persons, including the applicants namely Aman Shan, Rajeev Singh Chandel and Ajay Kumar Srivastava, stating that an information was received from reliable source that Sansar Chand, Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Kanpur is leading an organized and systematic collection of illegal gratification in lieu of various official acts in connection with matters pertaining to Central Excise Department in his jurisdiction. Superintendents Ajay Srivastava, Aman Shah, Rajeev Singh Chandel (the applicants) and Office Staff Saurabh Pandey, all public servants subordinate to Sansar Chand, are part of this organized and systematic collection of illegal gratification and they contact various private parties either directly or through middleman Amit Awasthi for extorting and putting pressure for payment of illegal gratification. The amount of illegal gratification made by private parties to the above mentioned public servants were being transferred systematically through hawala channel to Delhi through Aman Jain and Chander Prakash @ Monu for parking and further delivering it to Smt. Avinash Kaur, wife of Sansar Chand. Sansar Chand was in the habit of taking periodic updates from his Superintendents Ajay Srivastava, Aman Shah and R.S. Chandel (the applicants) regarding receipt of illegal gratification from various private parties. These payments were taken on monthly or quarterly basis protection money for omission of action against the private parties by the Central Excise Department. The F.I.R. further states that Sansar Chand got in touch with the applicants and inquired about the payment status of various private parties, including one from ''Shishu', which pertains M/s Shishu Soap and Chemical Private Limited took further updates regarding payment from the aforesaid Company from Amit Awasthi. The applicants and Amit Awasthi further engaged Manish Sharma, Director of M/s Shishu Soap and Chemicals Private Limited who assured both of them that he would shortly make the payment of the agreed periodical illegal gratification for the months of February, 2018 to April, 2018. The applicants and Amit Awasthi confirmed the same to Sansar Chand. It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that the source had revealed that when the illegal gratification was not received, Sansar Chand started pursuing it with the applicants and Amit Awasthi and he instructed the applicants to contact Manish Sharma. The applicants and Amit Awasthi contacted Manish Sharma for payment of illegal gratificati
State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava
K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others
Considered opinion that Call Nos. 48 and 51, heavily relied upon by the prosecution, lack object and purpose to prove the complicity of the respondent herein in the crime.
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
Charges under corruption laws must include proof of demand for illegal gratification, which the prosecution failed to provide.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
Test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search....
The court affirmed that legal interception of telephonic conversations is permissible under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act for serious offences, and justified the condonation of a 22-day de....
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
Criminal breach of trust and forgery by Bank officer – Mere depositing defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate accused/petitioner from charge of commission of offence which has been ultima....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.