Back
2012(1) SCC 476
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
RAMESH GANDHI - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2004
Decided on 14-11-2011.
AIR 1992 SC 604; AIR 1960 SC 866; AIR 2007 SC 1546; (1994) 1 SCC 1; (1997) 9 SCC 258–Referred.
Key Points: - The FIR was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the supply of coal was made in terms of a decision approved by the Supreme Court and at a price fixed by it (!) . - This Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, but it must be used very sparingly and circumspectly (!) . - The FIR did not fall within any recognised category for quashing, such as lack of legal evidence, no cognizable offence, or mala fide prosecution (!) .
Key Points: - The core allegation was that the private company had breached its contractual obligations by failing to lift coal and make payments, and that public servants suppressed this fact to secure an illegal advantage [p_102–p_106]. - The judgment under appeal did not examine this breach because it focused only on the competence of the Coal Controller to issue directions (!) . - This Court held that a judgment obtained by suppressing relevant facts necessary for adjudication is a nullity and can be challenged, even after a final order (!) .
Key Points: - The FIR alleged that the judgment was the result of deliberate suppression of crucial facts by the accused public servants and the private company [p_117–p_118]. - This Court held that fraud vitiates judicial acts, and a judgment obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est [p_113–p_116]. - Therefore, an enquiry into whether the FIR is a consequence of fraud or suppression is permissible and must be applied with greater emphasis in public law matters (!) .
JUDGMENT
Chelameswar, J.-This appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 23rd November, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 352/2001. The appellants herein were the respondents in the above-mentioned Writ Petition.
2. An FIR came to be registered on 15th November, 2000 in the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Ranchi Branch in Crime No. RC 13(A)/2000 (R) under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against nine accused of whom the first accused was the Coal Controller at the relevant point of time. The next five accused were the officers of Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter `CCL'. for short), which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (hereinafter `CIL', for short). Accused No.9 is a Private Limited Company (hereinafter `private company', for short) and accused Nos. 7 and 8 are the members of the said private company.
3. The sole respondent, Mr. Ramesh Gandhi, is one of the members of the above-mentioned private company and shown to be the seventh accused in the above-mentioned FIR. He filed writ petition No. 352/2001 on the file of the Calcutta High Court praying that the above-mentioned FIR be quashed. By the judgment under appeal, the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition quashing the FIR.
4. The substance of the accusation in the FIR is that all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to confer an illegal and unjust benefit on the above-mentioned private company. In the process, the accused, "intentionally and dishonestly" suppressed certain relevant and crucial facts (in the various cases filed before the Calcutta High Court and also this Court to which the accused were parties), which resulted in orders being passed both by this Court as well as by the High Court favourable to the private company.
5. FIR reads as follows:
"DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, RANCHI BRANCH
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
Crime No.RC 13(A)/2000(R),
Date and time of Report : 15.11.2000 at 1700 Hrs.
Place of occurrence with State : Calcutta (West Bengal), Ranchi (Jharkhand)
Date and time of occurrence : 1990-91 to 2000
Name of complainant or informant with address : Through Source
Offence : U/s. 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Name and address of the accused :
(1) Shri P.N. Tiwary, the then Coal Controller, Calcutta (retd.)
(2) Shri R.P. Srivastava, the then G.M. Sales, CCL, Ranchi (retd.)
(3) Shri S.K. Srivastava, G.M. (Sales), CCL, Ranchi
(4) Shri B. Akla, CMD, CCL, Ranchi
(5) Shri K.M. Singh, the then G.M., Argada Area, CCL
(6) Shri Sudarshan Singh, the then Area Sales Officer Argada Area, CCL, presently Superintending Engineer (E&M), N.K. Area, CCL
(7) Shri Ramesh Gandhi, Prop. M/s. Continental Transport Constn. Corpn., (CTCC), Dhanbad (Pvt).
(8) Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC, Dhanbad (Pvt.)
(9) M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn. (CTCC), Dhanbad (Pvt.)
Action taken : Regular case registered and investigation taken up. Investigation Officer: Shri A. Prasad, DSP, CBI, SPE, Ranchi
INFORMATION
A reliable information has been received to the effect that Shri P.N. Tiwary, the then Coal Controller (since retd.), Calcutta, Shri R.P. Srivastava, the then G.M.(Sales), CCL, Ranchi (since retd.), Shri S.K. Srivastava, the then GM.(Sales), CCL, Ranchi, Shri B. Akla, the then Chief of Marketing, Coal India Limited, Calcutta, Director (Technical) and (Projects and Planning), CCL and presently Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL), Ranchi, Shri K.M. Singh, the then G.M., Argada Area, CCL, Shri Sudarshan Singh, the then Area Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL (presently Superintending Engineer (E&M), N.K. Area, CCL, Shri Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn., Dhanbad and Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn., Dhanbad entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance of the said conspiracy the accused publ
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
