Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(HP) 186
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J
SH. SURAJ KANT SON OF SHRI DALJEET SINGH – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) No. 400 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SH. RAJAN KAHOL
For the Respondents: SH. ANSHUL BANSAL, SH. ANSHUL ATTRI
The findings of departmental inquiries do not exonerate individuals from criminal charges; evidence from such inquiries can be relevant and must be considered for a fair trial.
Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Criminal charges against petitioners for fraud and forgery - Petitioners sought to examine a government witness and original records from a departmental inquiry - Trial Court rejected application, finding inquiry findings irrelevant to criminal case - Supreme Court principles established that findings in departmental inquiries do not exonerate from criminal charges - Court emphasized the importance of examining all relevant evidence for a fair trial - The order rejecting the petitioners' application was set aside, directing trial court to allow evidence to be produced for its relevance. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Evidentiary Rules - Discussion on admissibility and relevance of evidence pertaining to defense strategies in criminal trials - Importance of allowing evidence that is directly related to the charges faced by the accused to ensure a fair trial. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the trial court's rejection of their application to summon a witness from a departmental inquiry, which was contended to be relevant for their defense against criminal charges. The magistrate found the inquiry findings irrelevant post haste in the progression of their case.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of the petitioners’ application was deemed unsustainable, necessitating the trial court to consider the admissibility of the documents and witness for a fair adjudication. The Court underscored that the evaluation of evidence is crucial during final adjudication, separate from its mere admission.
Issues: Whether the findings from a departmental inquiry can impact the criminal proceedings and relevance of evidence in a criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision highlighted that departmental inquiries are distinct from criminal proceedings and findings in one do not necessarily exonerate individuals in the other, thus evidence related to both must be carefully considered as per legal standards.
Result: The application by petitioners was permitted, setting aside the trial court’s order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners charged with fraud plead for defense evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue for departmental inquiry documents to be included as evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court rejects application citing irrelevance to criminal case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. discussion on the relevance of evidence from departmental inquiries in criminal context. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. court overturns ruling, emphasizing inclusion of relevant evidence in trial. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
Petitioners have been charged under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), in trial in case No. 4/2 of 2011, titled as CBI Vs. Suraj Kant and others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate-Special Judicial Magistrate for CBI, Shimla.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court, by way of present petition, being aggrieved by order dated 15.6.2019 passed by the trial Court, whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the accused persons to examine witness, i.e. concerned Clerk from the office of Superintending Engineer alongwith original record of the documents sought to be proved and exhibited by the petitioners/accused persons, has been rejected.
3. In the trial, after closing of evidence of prosecution on 30.6.2016, statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 24.12.2016.
4. On 4.5.2019, counsel for the petitioners had tendered in evidence original copy of Memorandum of Articles of Charge dated 27.6.2011 alongwith Annexures I to IV, certified copy of report of Departmental inquiry dated 25.11.2018 obtained under Right to Information Act, and Letter/Memorandum dated 31.1.2012, on behalf of accused Tilak Raj with request to grant of permission to prove these documents (Mark A to Mark C) in accordance with law. Statement of the counsel, to this effect, was recorded on that day and thereafter vide even dated order, time as prayed for moving appropriate application for further defence evidence was granted, as last opportunity and case was adjourned for 13.6.2019.
5. In furtherance to aforesaid order, petitioners preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to summon Clerk of the Office of Superintending Engineer alongwith complete record, referred in the application pertaining to the Departmental Inquiry initiated against petitioners with respect to the misconduct for omissions/commission on the basis of which Criminal Case has been launched against the petitioner.
6. The application was opposed by respondent-CBI on the ground that it was filed to delay the trial and further that there was no reference of these documents in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and further that report of Departmental Inquiry was not relevant for adjudication of criminal proceedings and thus their production, exhibition and proof was not essential for just and fair decision of the case.
7. Accepting the plea of respondent-CBI, learned Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner, on the ground that Criminal Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by submitting final report in the Court on 5.1.2011, whereas Departmental Inquiry was initiated on 27.6.2011 and, therefore, outcome of Departmental Inquiry was not relevant to decide the criminal proceedings and thus proposed witness was not necessary and essential to be examined for proper adjudication of the case.
8. To substantiate the view taken by the trial Court, reliance has been placed on State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685, wherein three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:-
“25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hiera
