Delhi District Court
Cc No. 14/2012 Cbi vs P Sasi 1 Of 9 on 30 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN, SPECIAL JUDGE,
CBI (PC ACT), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
RC No. AC1/2007/A0001/CBI/ACU-I
CC No. 14/2012
CBI
Versus
Sh. P. Sasi
Date of filing of charge sheet : 14.04.2007
Date of receiving the case on transfer : 01.11.2012
ORDER
1 Accused has sought his discharge on the ground that cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation.
2 Let me first recapitulate the facts in brief.
3 Tehlka.com a news portal had conducted a string of sting operations in 2000-2001 to expose alleged corruption in procurement of defence equipments by the defence forces under Ministry of Defence. Mr. Mathew Samuel and Mr. Anil Malviya participated in such sting operations assuming fictitious identities and held various meetings with accused P. Sasi during September 2000 to December 2000.
4 P. Sasi was, during that period, posted as Assistant, Office of Director, OS (Armaments) MGO Branch, Ministry of Defence, New CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 1 of 9 Delhi. He provided relevant information/documents related to procurement of various defence equipments including HHTI (Hand Held Thermal Imagers) to Mathew Samuel and Anil Malviya and also accepted a sum of Rs.80,500/- as motive.
5 Following documents were handed over by accused to the representatives of Tehlka.com.
i) Cyclostyled copy of order No. A/30147/MI-9 dated 03.11.2000 of Lt. Col.
Ramesh Sharma, GSO(I), MI-9, Directorate General of Military Intelligence regarding visualisation of security threat to ORG.
ii) Photocopy of a letter (I page only) of Ministry of Defence, South Block dated 13.08.1998 to M/s General Optics (Asia) Ltd., Pondicherry for procurement of PNS for 5.56mm INSAS Rifle/LMG.
iii) Photocopy of a hand written note on likely requirement of ammunition for 2001-02.
iv) Acceptance Test Plan for DGPS System for Indian Army prepared by M/s Magellan. This is a catalogue of the DGPS System.
v) Letter dated 17.06.1999 (Photocopy) of Ministry of Defence to Chief of Army Staff regarding scaling of PNV devices i. e. Passive Night Vision Goggles and Passive Night Vision Binoculars. Vide this letter sanction of the President to authorize the above said two items at different scales to Rashtriya Rifle Formation Head-Quarters and Battalions has been conveyed. Its copy has been marked to different branches of the Army including MGO(OS-Armaments).
vi) Zerox copy of HHTIs specifications containing pages from SI. 5 to 11 and bottom of each page 'ELOP Proprietory' is mentioned. These pages contain the details of HHTI viz. Its definition, its components and other functions along with photocopy of Annexure-I containing the details of HHTI basic equipment, its accessories, spare parts, special maintenance tools etc., their quantity, cost per unit of item and total cost, and one page (photocopy) captioned 'Annex-I HHTI contract' which contains the schedule of deliverables and prices of HHTI.
vii) Supply order (Original) dated 06.11.1998 for procurement of item PT No. Z7-5960-000990 18MM II (parallel) tube (2nd generation) PNS for 5.56 rifle/LMG CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 2 of 9 to M/s BE-Delft Electronics Ltd., Pune for Rs.19,44,43,200/- signed by col. Anil Sehgal, Director, OS (Armaments) for DGOs.
viii) The contract No. 11(4)/99/HHTI/TCF/D(GS-IV) dated 01.02.2000 for procurement of HHTIs containing 21 sheets (42 pages) between Ministry of Defence and M/s Thomson-CSF OPTRONIQUE, France.
ix) The letter, along with supply order No. A/17657/DGPS Rover/OS-16B dated 18.09.2000, of Col. Anil Sehgal, Director, OS (Armaments) for DGOS to M/s Electronics Corporation India Ltd., Hyderabad for procurement of DGPS Rover (Photocopy).
x) Letter No. A/17655/HHLRF/IOE/OS-16B dated 18.09.2000, along with supply order signed by Col. Anil sehgal to M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd., Pune, for procurement of 100 LRF LS30 for Thermal IOE (Photocopy of 14 pages).
xi) Letter No. A/17649/HHTI/IOE/OS-16B dated 25.02.2005 along with supply order for procurement of integrated observation equipments (Quantity 40 Nos) and HHTIs (116 No.) to M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd. Machhlipatnam, signed by Col. Anil Sehgal. (Photocopy).
6 Accused was custodian of all such documents and had access to all such official documents pertaining to FCI (Fire Control Instruments) including HHTIs.
7 All such documents were handed over to Sh. Anirudh Bahal, functionary of Tehlka.com by Mathew Samuel who, in turn, produced the same before Justice Venkataswami Commission of inquiry which was set up by the Government of India to inquire into the revelations made by Tehlka.com. Sting operations were captured electronically also which also suggested involvement of accused.
8 By handing over the aforesaid documents, accused prima facie committed offences under section 5 (4) r/w Section 5 (1)
(a) and 5 (3) of Official Secrets Act 1923. FIR was registered and CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 3 of 9 investigation was done which culminated into filing of complaint as well as charge sheet.
9 Complaint was filed by Sh. Pankaj Srivastava, SP, CBI on 14.04.2007 before Ld. Duty MM. Ld. CMM took cognizance on 01.12.2007 on the basis of averments appearing in the complaint and there was direction to tag the charge sheet with the complaint case.
10 Case landed in the Court of Sessions as after the withdrawal of notification giving powers to CMM, court of CMM seized to have jurisdiction to try cases pertaining to Official Secrets Act and Court of Sessions got the jurisdiction to try such cases.
11 Accused took exception to the order of taking cognizance claiming that cognizance had been taken beyond the period of limitation. He filed petition straightway in High Court of Delhi in this regard and vide order dated 21.08.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal MC No. 885/2008, accused/petitioner was granted permission to raise the question of cognizance being barred by limitation before the trial court.
12 It is in this backdrop that the accused has moved application seeking his discharge.
13 I have gone through the application under disposal as well as the reply filed by CBI. I have also considered the averments appearing in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet and given CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 4 of 9 my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
14 It would be worthwhile to mention here that a separate case against the same accused has been registered by CBI for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well and such other case has also been received on transfer by this court.
15 Sh. Riyaz Ahmed Bhat, Ld. counsel for accused/applicant has contended that the alleged offences in question are punishable with imprisonment for a term which can extend to three years and as per Section 468 of Cr. P. C., no court can take cognizance of such offences after the expiry of period of limitation of three years. Sh. Ahmed has contended that the court had taken cognizance on 01.12.2007 whereas the period of limitation had already expired in March, 2004.
16 Sh. Ahmed has contended that Zee Television had come up with a telecast regarding the sting in question and authorities constituted under the State and even the public at large came to know about the alleged commission of offences by the applicant/accused and others in March, 2001 itself. Thus time started to run w. e. f. March, 2001.
17 It has also been vehemently contended that Sh. Anirudh Bahal deposed before such commission on 02.07.2002 during which he produced copies of documents which were alleged to have been handed over by the accused to Mathew Samuel and Anil Malviya CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 5 of 9 during the supposed sting operations and thus, at least, in July, 2002 the governmental agencies and the investigating team certainly came to know about the alleged offence.
18 It has been thus argued that the Government as well as the investigating agencies learnt about the commission of offences way back in March, 2001 or on 02.07.2002 when Anirudh Bahal made deposition before the commission and since the period of limitation had started running from said dates, the present complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation.
19 Said contentions have been refuted by CBI. According to CBI, the documents in question had been seized on 21.12.2004 in another similar case and CBI came to know about the commission of offences by the accused only on 21.12.2004 and therefore, the case was not barred by limitation since the cognizance was taken on 01.12.2007 i. e. within the period of three years.
20 Undoubtedly, cognizance for such types of offences can be taken within the period of three years. Section 469 Cr. P. C. provides as to when such period of limitation would commence. It reads as under:
Commencement of the period of limitation.-(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence,-
(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 6 of 9 such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or
(c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.
21 Presently we are concerned with clause (b). As per Section 469 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., the period of limitation would commence when the offence comes to the knowledge of any aggrieved person or police officer. Words 'police officer' can only mean the police officer who is making investigation into the offence alleged or complained of and not any police officer. Similarly, person aggrieved can be said to be the person who authorizes the filing of complaint under Official Secrets Act 1923.
22 Sh. Ahmed has placed his strong reliance upon the telecast by Zee Television. He states that such telecast was seen by whole of the nation and all the governmental agencies and investigational agencies learnt about the alleged story in March, 2001 itself and therefore, the limitation commenced from the time of telecast itself. I, however, do not agree with this contention. Merely because the sting operation was televised by any private channel, it cannot be mechanically inferred from such telecast that the police official, conducting the investigation in the present case, must have automatically come to know about the commission of offences as well as of the offender.
CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 7 of 9 23 Deposition by Anirudh Bahal before the commission can also not govern the limitation. Simply because Mr. Bahal had
deposed before the commission in July, 2002 and had produced the documents in question before the commission would not tantamount to hold that any police officer of CBI manifestly came to know about the commission of offence the day when such deposition was made.
24 Sh. Ahmed has also relied upon one affidavit dated. 29.08.2002 which had been filed by Sh. Subir Dutt, Secretary, Ministry of Defence (MOD), Government of India before the commission. A Secretary cannot be equated with any 'police officer'. Role of 'Secretary' and role of 'police officer' are entirely different. Filing of an affidavit by any bureaucrat before the commission cannot be equated with simultaneous knowledge of a police officer regarding commission of any offence 25 The documents in question were admittedly seized by CBI on 21.12.2004 and that day certainly, CBI must have learnt about the commission of offence under the Official Secret Act. Thus the important date is found to be of 21.12.2004 when the documents in question were seized and the limitation period has to start w. e. f. 21.12.2004. CBI acquired actual awareness about the commission of offence only on 21.12.2004 when the documents in question were seized by CBI and must have been available to it for scrutiny and examination. Even if there had been any telecast prior to that or even if someone had deposed before the commission with respect to CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 8 of 9 the fact of handing over of documents by accused to the sting-doers, that would not mean and indicate that all the facts, revealing commission of an offence, had come to the knowledge of police officer or aggrieved person. Words "offence" and "knowledge" as mentioned in section 469 (1)(b) Cr. P. C. cannot be taken too nonchalantly. Knowledge has to be concrete knowledge and cannot be confused with cursory information. It was only when such documents were seized that CBI was in any position to ascertain about the commission of offence, at least, for the purposes of commencement of period of limitation and therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance was barred by limitation.
26 Resultantly, application of accused is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the open MANOJ JAIN
Court on 30.11.2012 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CC no. 14/2012 CBI Vs P Sasi 9 of 9