Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu, Hirdesh, JJ.
U.S.(Upjeet Singh) Arora, S/o Shri Maya Singh Arora – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Special Police Establishment, Office of Lokayukt – Respondent
MCRC No. 24473 of 2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023
Shobha Menon, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ritu Janjani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Abhijeet Awasthy, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The suspicion of involvement, the impact of statutory amendments, and the establishment of mens rea are crucial factors in determining the validity of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC.
Headnote:
Inherent Powers - Quashment of Charge-sheet - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) - IPC Section 120-B
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashment of a charge-sheet and orders taking cognizance and framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC. The allegations involved submission of a false inspection report causing loss to the government and financial benefit to a private party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspicion of the petitioner's involvement was strong enough to support the charges framed. It held that the substitution of the unamended Section 13 by the amended Section 13 did not create a vacuum in the law, and the element of mens rea was prima facie established.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the charges framed, the impact of the amendment to Section 13 of the PC Act, and the presence of mens rea in the petitioner's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspicion of the petitioner's involvement was sufficient at the stage of framing charges, and the substitution of the unamended Section 13 by the amended Section 13 did not create a legal vacuum. It also emphasized that the element of mens rea was prima facie established and should be deciphered during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the charges framed were justified.
ORDER
1. This petition invoking inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashment of charge-sheet bearing No.1/2005 dated 17.01.2005 emanating from Crime No.35/1998 registered at Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal. Further challenge is made to the order dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure A/26) taking cognizance of the offences punishable u/S 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and to the order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure A/7) of framing charge qua the said offences.
2. Learned counsel for rival parties Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Ritu Janjani, Advocate and Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Advocate are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.
3. Learned senior counsel Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Ritu Janjani, has essentially raised following grounds in support of aforesaid challenge:
(i) Bare reading of allegations in the charge-sheet do not disclose any cognizable offence either under the PC Act or under the IPC.
(ii) The transaction lying at the foundation of the offences alleged is purely contractual with no element of criminality.
(iii) Petitioner in his capacity as Assistant Engineer in the Department of Energy, Government of M.P. had no power or authority to accept the NIT in question nor had any power to disburse the amount and thus no offence is made out against petitioner.
(iv) Amendment to Section 13 of the PC Act with effect from 26.07.2018 substitutes the unamended provision u/S 13(1)(d) of the PC Act thereby erasing the said unamended Section 13(1)(d) from the statute book and; as such, no offence under unamended Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act could have been alleged against petitioner in the impugned order and charge-sheet.
4. The contents of petition, the documents annexed thereto and the arguments of learned counsel for rival parties are heard and perused. With the consent of learned counsel for rival parties, this petition is finally heard and decided in the following terms.
5. Bare reading of the charge-sheet dated 17.01.2005 (Annexure A/25) where petitioner is a named accused, reveals that though petitioner was not involved in the process of inviting, considering or deciding the tender regarding purchase of Lantern but the inspection report inter alia signed by petitioner disclosed that upto 30th June, 1996, 1,000 Lanterns were received by the department. The allegation further reveals that despite aforesaid report submitted inter alia by petitioner about 1,000 Lanterns were actually not been received by the department till 30th June, 1996. Resultantly, a doubt was cast upon the said inspection report submitted inter alia by petitioner and on further investigation it was revealed that petitioner and other signatories of the said inspection report were found prima facie guilty of submitting a false inspection report to cause loss to government and corresponding financial benefit to the tenderer. As such, based upon the material collected by the Investigating Agency, the trial Court while taking cognizance and framing charge found that a false inspection report submitted inter alia by petitioner was one of the links in the entire chain of events which took place starting from calling of tender upto delivery of Lanterns to the department. Suspicion of petitioner's involvement arose due to the false inspection report and therefore, learned Trial Judge took cognizance and framed charges as aforesaid.
6. Whether the suspicion is strong enough to support the impugned charges framed or not is a question of degree of complicity which cannot be decided at this early stage since this exercise is to be left alone for the trial Court to be conducted after collection and marshalling of evidence.
7. This Court in view of above does not feel that any illegality or impropriety was committed by the trial Court while taking
