1. Public servants charged under IPC and PC Act for false inspection report – Petition to quash charges and set aside order rejecting discharge. (Para 3 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J
Chirala Sesha Srinivas, Inspector of Central Excise, & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 5364 of 2014
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(3)(c) - Inherent powers of High Court - Statutory embargo - Section 19(3)(c) imposes a specific bar against grant of stay of proceedings or entertainment of revision against interlocutory orders - This embargo cannot be circumvented by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - What is impermissible under revisional jurisdiction cannot be resurrected under writ jurisdiction. (Paras 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Challenge to judicial orders - A judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution - Challenge to judicial orders lies by way of an appeal or a revision or under Article 227 of the Constitution - Once charge-sheet is filed and criminal court takes cognizance, proceedings attain judicial imprimatur and challenge thereto assumes a different legal complexion. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(3)(c) - While proceedings under Section 482 can be entertained in appropriate cases, no stay of trials under the Act can be granted. (Para 7.7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, public servants, were arraigned as accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC, arising from a joint inspection report submitted by them pursuant to official directions. The petitioners' discharge applications were rejected by the Special Court. Initially, a Criminal Revision Application was filed, which was subsequently converted into a Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The petition as framed is fundamentally misdirected and bereft of any sustainable cause to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge an order rejecting a discharge application under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether the statutory bar under Section 19(3)(c) of the Act can be circumvented by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory embargo under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which prohibits revision against interlocutory orders, cannot be circumvented by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226. A judicial order of a criminal court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226.
Result : Petition dismissed.
1. Public servants charged under IPC and PC Act for false inspection report – Petition to quash charges and set aside order rejecting discharge. (Para 3 )
2. Departmental exoneration and resignation preclude criminal trial vs writ barred under PC Act and judicial orders not amenable to Article 226. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Article 226 due to statutory bar and judicial orders not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Para 12 )
No. Section 19(3)(c) prohibits revision or stay of interlocutory orders; writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent that bar. (Para 8 , 9 )
No, judicial orders can only be challenged by appeal, revision, or Article 227, not by writ under Article 226. (Para 9 , 11 )
CAV JUDGMENT
A. PROLOGUE:-
1. At the inception, the present petition was instituted seeking conversion of Criminal Revision Application No. 417 of 2013 into a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.11.2024, was pleased to pass the following direction, which reads thus:–
“The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the revisionist will convert this revision application into a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the real culprits are not booked by the investigating agency. He contends that the petitioner therefore intends to make appropriate prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly, to enable the learned counsel to carry out the aforesaid exercise, the matter is adjourned to 21% November, 2014.”
2. In view of the foregoing order and the consequent conversion of the Criminal Revision Application into a Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners now pray for the following substantive reliefs:
“a. That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to admit and allow this Special Criminal Application;
b. That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the charges against the petitioners in the charge sheet filed before CBI Court No 3, Ahmedabad in Case No 8/2007;
c. That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Hon'ble special Judge, in the case No 8/2007 may be quashed and set aside;
d. Pending admission and final hearing of this Special Criminal Application, the Hon'ble Court will be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Case No.8/2007 pending before the Learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court, Ahmedabad in the interest of justice;
e. Be pleased to dispense with the filing of affidavit as the same was filed along with the Criminal Revision Application No. 417 of 2013 before this Hon ble Court;”
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:-
3. The petitioners, Shri C.S. Srinivas and Shri H.C. Pandya , were public servants working as Officers on Special Duty (OSD) on deputation in the office of the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone (for short, KASEZ), Ahmedabad, at the relevant time in 2002. They are arraigned as accused in Special Case No. 8 of 2007 (RC 14A/2004-GNR) pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad. The charge sheet filed by the CBI seeks to prosecute them under Sections 120B , 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.1. The prosecution arises from the issuance of a Letter of Permission (LOP) dated 24.01.2002 by the Development Commissioner, KASEZ, in favour of one Shri Anis Abu Mithani, Proprietor of M/s. Shiv Metal Corporation, authorizing duty-free import of metal scrap for export-oriented manufacture. Subsequently, allegations surfaced that the said unit had fraudulently diverted duty-free imported materials into the open market and fabricated export documents, thereby causing revenue loss to the Government. Though the petitioners were not named in the FIR registered by the CBI on 24.06.2004, they were later implicated in the charge sheet primarily on the basis of a joint inspection report dated 17.07.2002 submitted by them to the Development Commissioner pursuant to official directions dated 02.07.2002.
3.2 The petitioners filed discharge applications under Section 227 of the CrPC before the learned Special Judge, contending that their report was merely a compliance of official instructions and contained no element of falsity or criminal intent. The CBI, however, opposed the applications with allegations unsupported by the charge sheet. The learned Special Judge, by common order dated 06.05.2013, rejected the discharge applications, leading the petitioners to file the present petitio
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