Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Dr. Subhasish Das Gupta - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), Shillong - Respondent
Crl.Petn. No. 29 and 31 of 2018
Decided On : 24-05-2024
Corruption - Criminal Procedure - IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 13(2) - The court examined the applicability of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the definitions of public duty and public servant, ultimately affirming the charges against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves allegations of illegal financial transactions and unauthorized appointments at a Regional Centre of the National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CBI's investigation was valid, based on reliable source information rather than a pseudonymous complaint, and that the petitioners were public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: Whether the FIR was based on a pseudonymous complaint and whether the petitioners qualify as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definitions of public duty and public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act are broad, encompassing individuals performing duties in the public interest, thus affirming the applicability of the Act to the petitioners.
Result: The petitions were dismissed, affirming the charges against the petitioners.
Key Points: - The court clarified that individuals performing public duties can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, regardless of formal employment status (!) (!) (!) . - The definitions of "public duty" and "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act are broad, encompassing duties in the public interest and persons performing such duties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The CBI investigation was valid based on reliable source information, and the FIR was not required to be based on written complaint as per CBI Manual provisions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
COMMON JUDGMENT
W. Diengdoh, J. - These two petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refers to the proceedings in CBI Case No. 4/2015 under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI at Shillong.
2. Since the subject matter relates to allegations of illegal and fraudulent financial transactions involving a number of accused persons, the petitioner in Crl.Petn. No. 29 of 2018 as well as the petitioner in Crl.Petn. No. 31 of 2018 also being impleaded as accused persons therein, this Court deems it proper to deal with the two petitions and to pass a common judgment herein.
3. The background history of the case emanates from a complaint dated 05.04.2013 filed by one Shri Ratul Rabha who is said to represent an NGO 'Nature People for Protection of Forest and Wildlife', Baghmara, South Garo Hills, Meghalaya before the Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, wherein it was alleged that there is presence of nepotism, manipulation and corruption in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India's programme at the Regional Centre, National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board (NAEB), Shillong.
4. Records would show that a Regional Centre of the National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board (NAEB), Shillong, was set up at the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) with jurisdiction over the entire North Eastern Region. In this regard, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by the relevant authorities for a period of 5 years for such Centre to function.
5. The Centre is to carry out related Projects for which, during the period w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017, Prof. Brajesh Kumar Tiwari was the Coordinator with Dr. S.S. Chaturvedi and Dr. S.K. Jha as core members of the said Regional Centre.
6. The petitioner in Crl.Petn. No. 29 of 2018 was appointed as Research Officer by the Coordinator of Naib vide appointment order dated 28.06.2012.
7. The petitioner in Crl.Petn. No. 31 of 2018 was also appointed as Research Officer of NAEB, NEHU, Shillong vide appointment order dated 17.09.2011.
8. The Central Vigilance Commission on receipt of the said complaint (supra) had directed the Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to furnish a factual report on such complaint. In this manner, from one authority to the other, finally the Vice Chancellor, NEHU who is also the Chairman of the Advisory Management Committee (AMC) of the said Centre on receipt of related request, had endorsed the matter to the Pro-Vice Chancellor and Chief Vigilance Officer, NEHU to inquire into the matter and to submit his report.
9. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) based on alleged information received from reliable source that some unknown officers of the Regional Centre NAEB, NEHU, Shillong in collusion with unknown others, had committed gross misconduct by unauthorizedly appointing as many as 5(five) Research Officers/Research Fellows and 5(five) supporting staffs of the said Regional Centre on regular payment of monthly remuneration in violation of conditions laid down in the MoU (supra). There are also allegations of non-implementation of works as per the sanctioned amount and the like.
10. On the basis of the said preliminary enquiry, a regular First Information Report (FIR) being No. RC SHG 2015A 0003 dated 28.10.2015 was lodged and on inquiry, the following were found to be suspected to have committed the offence under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: -
i) Prof. Brajesh Kumar Tiwari, Co-Ordinator (A-1);
ii) Dr. Shiva Shankar Chaturvedi, (A-2), Core Group Member;
iii) Dr. Sanjeeva Kumar Jha (A-3) Core Group Member;
iv) Dr. Dhruba Sharma (A-4), the then Research Officer Regional Centre NAEB, NEHU, Shillong (private person);
v) Dr. Subhasish Das Gupta (A-5) the then Research Officer Regional Centre
AI
The court clarified that individuals performing public duties can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, regardless of their formal employment status.
The court affirmed that individuals executing public duties for public entities can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, broadening the scope of accountability and....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not prevent criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act if the charges involve higher proof standards; 'public servant' includes cooperati....
(1) Employee of a co-operative society which is controlled or aided by Government is covered within comprehensive definition of word ‘public servant’ as defined under P.C. Act.(2) A public servant ne....
Point of law :Prevention of corruption -Good laws alone would be not sufficient to make our country corruption free, hut there has to be effective enforcement of the same and efforts should be toward....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Recovery Agent for a public sector bank can be considered a 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and actions related to ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
