Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: April 4 vs Cbi on 4 April, 2014
CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: April 4, 2014
K.SIVA PARSAD ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
CBI ...RESPONDENT
2. CRM-M No.22445 of 2013 (O&M)
K.SIVA PARSAD ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
CBI ...RESPONDENT
3. CRM-M No.22308 of 2013 (O&M)
K.SIVA PARSAD ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
CBI ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL.
1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes
----
PRESENT: DR. SURYA PARKASH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. SUMEET GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT.
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
1. These petitions have been filed by petitioner K.Siva Parsad praying for quashing of FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0001, FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0002 and FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0003, respectively dated 7.1.2006, registered at Police Station CBI/ACB, Chandigarh under Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -2- Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 16/19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and all subsequent and supplementary proceedings arising therefrom, qua him.
2. The petitioner contends that he is known for evolving transparent system to curb corruption and criminal activities. One such instance is the introduction of computerization for photograph printing system and detect evasion of stamp duty at the time of registration. Due to the introduction of this system by him, impersonation and unnecessary litigation challenging the registered documents on the ground of impersonation were minimized. It was because of the image of the petitioner to fight against corruption and evolve a system for removing corruption that the Central Government appointed him as Senior Regional Manager (SRM), Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI'), Punjab region, as a large scale corruption was in vogue in the matter of procurement of food grains. The prevailing system, when the petitioner joined FCI, was lacking transparency in acceptance of food grains which resulted in encouraging nefarious elements both the private individuals and public servants, i.e. employees of FCI and State procuring agencies. The petitioner introduced a system which could keep a constant check on such elements.
3. It is urged by the petitioner that he introduced an innovative "empower the bag" system to identify such nefarious elements at all stages. To "empower the bag", the petitioner evolved the system whereby a raxin tag was bound by machine stitching at the mouth of the bag containing the Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -3- name of rice miller, crop year, code number, net weight, lot number, etc. Due to this raxin tag, at any point of time, at any place, wherever the bag has been sent throughout India, the supplier of the bag, i.e. the miller, the procuring agency, the accepting officials of FCI could be very easily identified and the responsibility fixed. Out of this full-proof system of "empower the bag" introduced novelly by the petitioner, the FCI could recover any loss suffered because of sub-standard supply/acceptance of rice without any legal hassles. In fact, the innovation of "empower the bag"
could change the mindset of the nefarious elements and put a pressure on them to restrain from indulging in corruption/criminal activities.
4. The allegations against the petitioner in all the first information reports are that he colluded with the millers and the FCI officials for procurement of sub-standard rice.
5. It is contended that the documents which are part of the challan would rather establish that the petitioner was harsh against corrupt people. The petitioner had taken stringent action as against the officials/officers against whom complaints had been received. Almost all the co- accused/officials had faced the disciplinary action taken by the petitioner. It is submitted, under such circumstances, collusion of the petitioner with those officials cannot at all be attributed. The introduction of "empower the bag" system by the petitioner was in fact against the taste of the millers, as the miller could be held responsible for supply of sub-standard rice at any stage and at any point of time, even at the final destination of the bags.
6. It is urged that the petitioner was not an expert regarding the Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -4- technical aspect of acceptance of rice and its quality. The petitioner being an IAS Officer was serving in his capacity as Administrative Head of FCI in the region. Primarily, his functions were decision making. For the checking of the quality, there was a separate wing under the petitioner in the Regional Office consisting of Joint Manager (Quality Control), i.e. Head of the Quality Wing, Deputy Managers (Quality Control), Assistant Managers (Quality Control) and Technical Assistants. The petitioner could take action as against the field staff only if each case was processed by the Quality Wing. There was not even a single instance which could show that the petitioner did not take action against the erring field staff. Annexure P-5 which is part of the challan would go to show that the petitioner had taken action against each and every erring field officials. Unfortunately, the CBI investigation did not find any fault with the Quality Control Wing working under the petitioner. There is no specific allegation as to with whom the petitioner entered into the conspiracy nor there is any material collected during the course of investigation to pinpoint the conspiracy theory projected by the prosecution. In other words, the allegations were very vague and uncertain.
7. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation of India is the Head of said Corporation. His observation in the letter addressed by him on 28.7.2005, prior to the joint inspection conducted with the FCI officials and in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the petitioner had in fact taken stringent action against the lower staff and no complaint was ever received touching the integrity of the petitioner Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -5- were not at all considered by the investigating agency before proceeding further in this case.
8. It is further contended by the petitioner that there is a bar under Section 6-A of The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946 from conducting any enquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary and above or a Government appointee in the Corporation established under the Central Act except previous approval of the Central Government. Clause 10.6 of the CBI Manual reiterates the above position. Therefore, the investigation conducted without prior approval of the Central Government is totally against the statutory protection granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing all the three FIRs and the subsequent proceedings emanated therefrom.
9. The respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation urged before the Court that a surprise check was conducted alongwith the FCI officials at 5 centres and found from the report of the Central Government Corporation Analysis Laboratory that samples drawn from those centres were found below rejection limit prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act/fair average quality. Certain FCI officials in connivance of the rice millers as named in the FIR had accepted poor quality rice as Grade A rice causing huge loss to the public exchequer. The investigation would disclose that FCI officials in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with the rice millers had consciously accepted sub-standard rice consignments. Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -6-
10. It is submitted by the CBI that the petitioner has been an active, conscious and willful conspirator of planned criminal acts. The petitioner being Senior Regional Manager of FCI, Punjab during the relevant period was responsible for ensuring the quality of the rice being accepted by FCI. The petitioner in his capacity as a SRM failed to collect 2% of the samples of rice consignments accepted by each Technical Assistant at the Depot of FCI district. The SRM was required to ensure the genuineness of the samples drawn by Technical Assistants concerned by making surprise checks to restrain them from submission of improved/upgraded samples. The investigation has revealed that the accused-petitioner had hatched a conspiracy from the very beginning which is proved by his D.O. Letter to the Zonal Manager, FCI, North. He had instructed that the squads inspecting all regions should be at bare minimum level. For determining the quality of stocks, the quality complaints received from the destination should be the only criteria. He has instructed that checking of stocks at source of procurement apart from the mandatory checks and declaring at as BRL (Below Rejection Limit) should be avoided. An unprecedented situation was created by the SRM, Punjab against sending squads from Zonal Office (North) and Headquarter level. The Executive Director (Vigilance) through his D.O. Letter dated 8.2.2005 has disclosed that regular surprise checks were discontinued from Headquarters on the assurance of the SRM, Punjab that Region would closely monitor the quality and quantity, but there had been negligible number of surprise checks at Regional level. It could be presumed that the Field Officers were Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -7- left to play havoc during these important operations. 438 quality complaints were received from destination spots against 28, 17 and 59 complaints received during the previous period. The petitioner had found only 3 out of 3566 samples as BRL (Below Rejection Limit), whereas, Zonal Office found 80% of the samples and Executive Director found 91.7% of the samples beyond specifications.
11. It is submitted that mere adoption of certain practice on the administrative side while discharging official functions are not licence for indulging subsequently in corrupt practices. The matter regarding acceptance of poor quality rice was brought to the notice of the petitioner by the Executive Director (Vigilance) and directed him to transfer out of Punjab some officials. But those officials were not relieved in compliance with the directions of Executive Director. The Executive Director had directly attributed inaction of SRM, Punjab for the problem faced by the Punjab region. Though the petitioner had vast technical resources at his disposal to ensure acceptance of rice of uniform specifications, he dishonestly and in conspiracy with the co-accused officials and rice millers chose not to take any action. Sh.Bhanwar Singh, Joint Manager (Quality Control) had carried out a number of inspections in various districts of FCI, Punjab till April, 2005. He had been advised by the petitioner that he should curtail the number of visits to the field for inspection. On the basis of the recommendation made by the Joint Secretary (Quality Control), no disciplinary action was taken by the petitioner.
12. It is urged that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -8- protection of Section 6-A of the DSPE Act or Clause 10.6 of the CBI Manual as the petitioner was not an employee of the Central Government of the rank of Joint Secretary and above. Statutory protection has been given only to the officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. The petitioner was not an officer of the level of Joint Secretary or above at the time when the offence was allegedly committed.
13. It is submitted that no revision/quashing petition is maintainable against the order framing charge under Prevention of Corruption Act. A remedy expressly barred by the statute cannot be resorted to by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court. At the time of framing the charge, the trial Court is to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The trial Court was satisfied that prima facie case has been made out for proceeding further. Sufficiency of evidence or otherwise, collected by the investigating agency is not a matter within the purview of the Court while framing the charges. The present petition is grossly misconceived and is also abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is contended by the CBI that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
14. The following points arise for determination in these three petitions filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the entire proceedings:-
1. Whether the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings after the charges were framed by the trial Court in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -9- are maintainable.
2. Whether sanction as contemplated under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act was required to investigate the offence against the petitioner.
3. Whether criminal prosecution against the petitioner is unsustainable, as it was nothing but abuse of the process of the Court which would result in miscarriage of justice.
15. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction can pass any orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court in order to secure the ends of justice. As per Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no Court shall stay the proceedings under that Act exercising the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
16. It is to be taken note of that the present petitions have not been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge-sheets framed as against him. Attacking the very foundation of the first information reports which led to the framing of the charge, the petitioner has preferred these petitions invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. In State of Haryana vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383, it has been held as follows:-
"107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -10- principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formuale and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -11- of the same do not disclose the commission of any ofence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of an Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the account and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -12-
18. As per the above decision cited by the the petitioner as well as the respondent-CBI, where the allegations made in the first information report and the materials collected by the investigating agency to support those allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court is competent to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and also to secure the ends of justice.
19. In the instant case, it is urged by the petitioner that the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected by the investigating agency do not prima facie show commission of any offence by the petitioner.
20. In Satya Narayana Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 377, it has been held as follows:-
"25. Thus in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act there can be no stay of trials. We clarify that we are not saying that proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be adapted. In appropriate cases proceedings under Section 482 can be adapted. However, even if petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is entertained there can be no stay of trials under the said Act. It is then for the party to convince the concerned Court to expedite the hearing of that petition. However, merely because the concerned Court is not in a position to take up the petition for Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -13- hearing would be no ground for staying the trial even temporarily."
21. In a case which arisen under the Prevention of Corruption Act, stay of the criminal proceedings is barred. But inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be resorted to, of course, in appropriate proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act as per the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
22. In Om Parkash vs. CBI, 2010(7) RCR(Criminal) 1077, it has been held "it is settled law that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. Where the Legislature has specifically barred a revision against the order of charge, the powers of this court under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India cannot be invoked to circumvent the legislative intent nor inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised for that purpose. I, therefore, consider that the present revision filed by the petitioner against the charge framed by Special Judge, CBI was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed".
23. That was a case where revision was preferred against the charges framed by the Special Judge, CBI. But in the instant case, the first information report itself is under challenge on the ground that no case has been made out even as per the allegation found in the first information report. Therefore, the above decision will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
24. In Dharambir Khattar and others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 1733, it has been held by Hon'ble Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -14- Delhi High Court as follows:-
"32. To conclude this part of the discussion it is held that in the context of Section 19 (3)(c) of the words "no Court shall exercise the powers of the revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial" includes an interlocutory order in the form of an order on charge or an order framing charge. On a collective reading of the decisions in V.C.Shukla and Satya Narayan Sharma, it is held that in terms of Section 19(3)(c) PCA, no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Court against order on charge or an order framing charge passed by the Special Court."
25. Now it is settled position of law that even against the order framing the charge by Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no revision shall lie.
26. In my considered view, the present petitions challenging the first information report and the consequential proceedings on the ground that allegations made in the first information report and the materials collected during the course of investigation to support those allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused is very much maintainable, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch.Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Therefore, the above issue is answered accordingly.
27. Let me now take up the second issue relating to the requirement of sanction for investigation as contemplated under Section 6-A of the Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -15- DSPE Act.
28. Section 6-A of the DSPE Act reads as follows:-
"6-A. Approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry of investigation.-(1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to-
(a) the employees of the Central Government of the
level of Joint Secretary and above; and
(b) such officers as are appointed by the Central
Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)."
29. Let me also advert to Clause 10.6 of CBI Manual which reads as follows:-
Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -16-
"10.6. If a case is required to be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary and above or a Government appointee in the Central Public Sector Undertakings, prior permission of the Government should be taken before enquiry/investigation as required under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act except the case under Section 7 of the PC Act wherein the registration is followed by immediate arrest of the accused. In case, involvement of another Government servant of the above- mentioned rank(s) is revealed during the course of investigation, a fresh permission as required under Section 6-A of the DEPE Act, which should be obtained at the earlier. The permission so obtained should form an integral part of the FIR or the Case Diary, as the case may be."
30. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Clause (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 6-A of DSPE Act are disjunctive and not conjunctive. The word "; and" at the end of Clause (a) would make it disjunctive from Clause (b) and this word would mean 'Or' as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joint Director of Mine Safety vs. T and N Stone Quarries (P) Ltd., 1987(3) SCC
208.
31. In Ashraf Khan and another vs. State of Gujarat, 2012(11) SCC 606, it has been laid down that where different safeguards are provided at different stages, the same should be adhered to at all the stages and Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -17- absence of approval at the first stage would render even the conviction as illegal.
32. In Swantraj and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1975(3) SCC 322, it has been held that Section 6-A of the DSPE Act has been introduced to protect the bona fide actions at the decision making level and also to protect such officers who are involved in decision making.
33. A bare reading of Section 6-A(1)(a) and (b) would unambiguously indicate that not only the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above, but also the officers of such rank appointed by the Central Government, even in Corporations, are entitled to statutory protection and as a result of which no enquiry or investigation could be take up by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without proper sanction by the Authorities. The word "; and" found in Clause (a) of Section 6-A(1) clearly shows that Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6-A(1) are partly conjunctive and partly disjunctive. The phrase "such officers" found in clause (b) of Section 6-A(1) would mean only the officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. Otherwise, the Legislature would not have thought it fit to specifically refer in Clause (b) as "such officers". If the meaning of "such officers" is disconnected with the meaning conveyed under Clause (a), it would lead to a position that all the officers of the Central Government irrespective of their rank and position, working in Corporations would have the statutory protection as contemplated under Section 6-A(1). In my considered view, such was not the intention of the Legislature.
Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -18-
34. In Clause 10.6 of the CBI Manual also, the officers in the rank of Joint Secretary and above alone have been protected. Even otherwise, misinterpretation found in the Manual would not nullify the statutory provision from which the Instructions adumbrated in the Manual have flowed.
35. The objective behind enactment of Section 6A of the DSPE Act as also the corresponding Instruction found in the CBI Manual was only for protecting the officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. The petitioner was not the officer of the level of Joint Secretary and above at the time when the joint inspection was undertaken. Therefore, it is held that no sanction from the Central Government is warranted for investigating the case by the CBI as against the petitioner.
36. Let me take up the last issue as to whether the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is unsustainable.
37. The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered three FIRs based on a single source of information. They have filed as many as 8 challans against the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner colluded with co-accused, namely, rice millers and the district level FCI staff which resulted in procurement of sub-standard rice which was found to be beyond specification under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In my considered view, the basic ingredients of Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not made out against the petitioner from the allegations found in the first information report as well as the materials collected by the investigating official. The requirement of Section Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -19- 420 IPC is the dishonest intention at the very inception to induce someone for delivering his property by accused. There is no such allegation of such inducement in the first information report or in the challan laid against the petitioner.
38. Annexure P-4 (Colly) would establish that the petitioner has introduced "empower the bag" system to track down millers/accepting staff even at the destination of the bags on account of the efforts taken by him. As per the Instructions he has issued under Annexure P-4, the practice of mixing sub-standard bags with the good quality bags of rice was completely halted. Had the petitioner colluded with the rice millers and the FCI staff, the petitioner would not have issued such Instructions to one and all to adhere to the novel system of "empower the bag" to zero-in on all erring millers and the accepting staff.
39. Annexure P-5 gives the entire details of the officials numbering 58 against whom the petitioner had taken stringent action. In other words, many of those officials against whom action had been taken have been shown as co-accused in these cases. Firstly, I find that the version of the CBI that no action was taken by the petitioner in order to give free hand to the millers as well as the accepting staff to receive sub-standard rice has no basis on account of the fact that stringent action as per the records had been taken by the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner who had taken stringent action against the erring officials was found fault with the other officials against whom he had initiated action.
40. Under the domain of the Quality Control Wing in SRM Office Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -20- headed by Joint Manager (Quality Control), a team of about 50 employees of various ranks are functioning. The maintenance of quality was the prime responsibility of that team. The petitioner could take action as regards the quality matters only on the recommendation of the Joint Manager (Quality Control). Surprisingly, none of the staff of the Joint Manager (Quality Control) was cited as accused. The petitioner could not have directly colluded with any district level officials. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of FCI had issued a confidential communication to Sh.R.N.Das, Secretary, Ministry of CA, F&PD, New Delhi under Annexure P-12, wherein he has categorically referred to the style of functioning of the petitioner as follows:-
"i. That both were senior IAS officers and that they were selected and placed after due scrutiny by the Government (ACC) and the Ministry.
ii. That in the period that they have worked with the undersigned for more that two years here have only been one or two complaints against the officers which were of general nature and they are working by and large to the best of their capability. The nature of work being done by them in FCI necessarily involved making a few people unhappy which leads to complaints but as mentioned earlier there have been hardly any complaints of serious nature.
........
iv. In so far as Punjab is concerned the officer using his Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -21- clout as a State Cadre Officer has on several occasions saved FCI/Government from tremendously embarrassing situations including that of handling inadequacy of parboiled rice in the last season through local initiative. Despite handling almost 50-60% of the country's wheat and rice procurement if there have been a few black sheep in the local staff who have done some procurement below specification, which is only a miniscule of total procurement that should not be held against the officer. Stringent action was taken by him against lower staff any way."
41. In the statement before the Investigating Officer, the Chairman- cum-Managing Director, FCI stated that so far as his knowledge goes, there was no complaint against the integrity of SRM and the fact that he took action at regular interval justifies his statement. The statement of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, FCI was found annexed as Annexure P-
13.
42. Annexure P-12 and P-13 virtually gives a clean chit to the petitioner who had served as SRM, Punjab putting in all out efforts to streamline the administration. The petitioner had worked to his efficiency with honesty and dedication and has saved the FCI from embarrassing situations at various levels. In fact the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, FCI had applauded the integrity of the petitioner.
43. The statement of Sh.Manohar Sharma suffered before the investigating officer would go to show that during the check period, the Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -22- petitioner being the Senior Regional Manager inspected rice in 33 depots from the period 27.11.2004 to 11.7.2005. His statement reads as follows:-
"I am working in FCI, Regional Office, Punjab, Chandigarh since May, 2001. I am dealing with rice inspection report being submitted by Area Manager, AGM (QC), DGM(QC), RO, Squad and General Manager. During KMS 2004-05, Senior Regional Manager Shri K.Siva Prasad, inspected Rice in 33 depots w.e.f. 27.11.2004 to 11.7.2005. He inspected Allah, Jandiala of Amritsar district dated 27.11.2004, Doraha District Ludhiana on 29.11.2004, Morinda, District Chandigarh on 2.12.2004, Phagwara District Kapurthala on 15.12.2004, Bhogpur District Jalandhar dated 31.12.2004, Mukerian District Hoshiarpur daed 30/3.12.2004, Banga district Jalandhar dated 15/16.12.2004, Balachaur District Hoshiarpur on 11.1.2005, Ajitwal, District Faridkot dated 31.1.2005, Banur District Patiala dated 29.1.2005, FSD, and ARDC Jagraon on 28/31.1.2005, Bhainda and Rampuraphool of District Bhatinda on 17/18.2.2005, Faridkot on 23/25.2.2005, Talwandi Bhai of District Ferozepur on 23/25.2.2005, Sangrur-I and II on 7/11.3.2005, FSD and R.S.Khanna on 17/19.3.2005, Mandi Gobindgarh District Patiala on 18/19.3.2005, Tarn Taran on 7/8.4.2005, Zira of District Ferozepur on 7/8.4.2005, FSD, Gurdaspur-I and II on 6/7.5.2005, S.P.Lodhi of Kapurthala on 30.4.2005, Nakodar of Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -23- District Jalandhar on 30.4.2005/7.5.2005, Nabha of District Patiala on 30/31.5.2005, Bhawanigarh of District Sangrur on 30.5.2005/4.6.2005, Bholath of Kapurthala district on 6.7.2005, B.C. Dhuri of District Sangrur on 15.7.2005 and FSD, Ferozepur on 11.7.2005."
44. From the above statement of Sh.Manohar Sharma, Manager (OC), it is found that the allegation that the petitioner had not conducted inspection of the depots is found to be totally false.
45. Annexure P-17 would go to establish that as per the Instructions received from the Zonal Manager, the employees had been transferred.
46. Surprisingly, it is found that none of the officials from the Regional Lab was cited as accused. Though there is an allegation of poor performance of Regional Lab.
47. For the foregoing discussion, I find that there is no foundation for proceeding against the petitioner either under Section 420 IPC or Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no specific allegation as to with whom the petitioner entered into conspiracy nor is there any material collected by the Investigating Officer to pin-point the conspiracy theory. The CBI relies on the D.O. Letter written by the petitioner to the Zonal Manager, FCI, North and the D.O. Letter dated 8.2.2005 written by Executive Director. Firstly, criminal conspiracy would not be hatched in the open. Secondly, the petitioner in his wisdom had thought that quality checking could be effectively done at Regional level. It Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -24- may be an error in judgement. Action or inaction on the part of the petitioner as alleged in the first information report as well as in the challan does not attract any criminal liability as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Changa Reddy vs. State of A.P., 1996(10) SCC 195. The petitioner who had made all out efforts to introduce a novel system to arrest the corrupt practices has been charge-sheeted. The remarks of the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, FCI about the integrity of the petitioner has virtually fallen on deaf ears. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner had initiated action against the erring officials, false allegations have been made as though he had not taken any action as instructed by top officials. Though he had inspected the depots, a totally erroneous stand had been taken by the CBI that he had not inspected the depots. The officer who had made an attempt to control the corrupt practices has been arrayed as an accused alongwith the other officials who faced stringent action taken by the petitioner.
48. The prosecution of Superior Officer for his alleged failure to tone up the administration and take appropriate action against the erring subordinate officials is totally impermissible. In my considered view, an innocent person would not be allowed to be subjected to the hardship and humiliation of full-dress trial. The petitioner has been unjustifiably subjected to an undeserving prosecution. Pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the above circumstances would result in harassment to the petitioner. Grave injustice is shown to have been caused to petitioner. Non-interference in this extraordinary circumstance would lead to abuse of the process of the Court.
Gulati Sumit 2014.04.04 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22629 of 2013 (O&M -25-
49. Therefore, in my view, the entire criminal proceedings in FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0001, FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0002 and FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0003, respectively dated 7.1.2006, registered at Police Station CBI/ACB, Chandigarh under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 16/19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, qua the petitioner, have been initiated without any legal basis or foundation. The petitioner has made out an exceptional circumstance to intervene in these matters invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to stall the miscarriage of justice and prevent the abuse of process of law.
50. For all these reasons, the criminal proceedings in FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0001, FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0002 and FIR/RC No.RCHG2006A0003, respectively dated 7.1.2006, registered at Police Station CBI/ACB, Chandigarh under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 16/19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and all subsequent and supplementary proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner are quashed and as a result all the three petitions are allowed.
April 4, 2014 (M. JEYAPAUL)
Gulati JUDGE
Gulati Sumit
2014.04.04 15:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document