CRL.A. 1186/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 22.05.2020

+

CRL.A. 1186/2017

MADHU KODA

.....Appellant

versus

STATE THROUGH CBI

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant

:Mr Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms Gauri Rishi,

Ms Srishti Juneja, Ms Aashima Singhal and

Mr Vinay Prakash, Advocates.

For the Respondent

:Mr R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate (SPP) with

Ms Tarannum Cheema, Ms Smrithi Suresh,

Ms Hiral Gupta and Mr Akshay Nayarajan,

Advocates.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2273/2017 & CRL.M.A. 38740/2019

1.

The appellant has filed the present applications, inter alia,

praying that the operation of the impugned order dated 13.12.2017

passed by the learned Special Judge convicting the appellant of the

offence of criminal misconduct under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of

clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13 read with sub-section (2) of

section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘PC

Act’), be stayed.

CRL.A. 1186/2017

2.

The appellant desires to contest for election to public offices,

including contest elections for the Legislative Assembly of the State of

Jharkhand but is disqualified to do so on account of his conviction.

The appellant states that he was elected as a member of Bihar

Legislative Assembly for the first time in the year 2000.

On

15.11.2000, the State of Jharkhand was carved out from the erstwhile

State of Bihar. The appellant held the office of the Minister of the

State for Rural Engineering Organization thereafter and continued to

do so till the year 2003. It is stated that thereafter, he held the office of

Minister of Panchayati Raj of Special Arrangement. The appellant

successfully contested the elections for the Legislative Assembly in

the year 2005 and in September 2006 was appointed the Chief

Minister of the State of Jharkhand. He continued to hold the said

office till 23.08.2008.

3.

The appellant has been convicted by the impugned order in a

case captioned “CBI v. M/s Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Limited and

Ors.”arising from FIR No. RC 219 2012E 0012.

The Trial Court

found that the appellant had abused his position as a public servant in

order to obtain the allocation of Rajhara Coal Block in favour of M/s

Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Limited (hereafter ‘VISUL’), without any

public interest.

Submissions

4.

Mr Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant advanced contentions on, essentially, three fronts. First, he

CRL.A. 1186/2017

submitted that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence to

establish, that the appellant had demanded any illegal gratification,

which is sine qua non of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC

Act. He stated that in absence of any such finding, the appellant’s

conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is ex facie

unsustainable. He relied on the deicions of the Supreme Court in

Khaleel Ahmed vs State of Karnataka: (2015) 16 SCC 350;

B.Jayaraj vs State of Andhra Pradesh: (2014) 13 SCC 55; P

Satyanarayana Murthy v Dist Inspector of Police and Others: (2015)

10 SCC 152; Mrs Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); and

State of Maharashtra v Dyaneshwar Laxman: (2009) 15 SCC 200 in

support of his contention that demand of illegal gratification was a

necessary ingredient of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC

Act.

5.

Second, he submitted that the PC Act was amended with effect

from 26^thJuly 2018 and the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) stand

deleted by virtue of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,

2018 (hereafter the ‘PC Amendment Act, 2018’). He submited that the

allegations made against the appellant no longer constitute an offence

and, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted by virtue of the doctrine of

beneficial construction. He relied on the decision of the Supreme

Court in T. Barai v enry AH Hoe and Another: (1983) 1 SCC 177 in

support of his contention.

6.

Third, he submitted that the appellant’s conviction