Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.22297/2018
Suresh Kumar Pandey
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Muni Trivedi,
Senior Advocate with Mr. Dharmendra
Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Counsel for Respondents : Mr.H.S. Chhabra, Govt. Advocate
No.1 to 5
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Anurag Shivhare, Advocate
No.6
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Ravindranath Chaturvedi, Adv.
No.7
Present: Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Yadav and
Mr. Atul Sreedharan, J.J.
O R D E R
(08/01/2020) Per: Atul Sreedharan The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein for the quash of Crime No.51/2017 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal, against the petitioner for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The First Information Report sought to be quashed is at page 45 of the petition. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on account of his enmity 2 with the complainant Sanjay Kumar Raikwar, who, according to the petitioner, is a blackmailer and poses as a News Editor operating in the name and style of "Sagar Ke Moti", which is published from Sidhi, Distt. Sidhi (M.P.). The petitioner says that the complainant is known to him and on the pretext of urgent need of money, had availed huge loan from the petitioner and has thereby availed the same. It is the petitioner's case that despite asking the complainant Sanjay Kumar Raikwar to return the loan amount repeatedly, the complainant is stated to have threatened the petitioner with dire consequences of getting him implicated falsely in some corruption case, if he pursued his demand for the money allegedly having given by him to the complainant by way of loan.
3. The petitioner was initially employed as a Peon with the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., at Sidhi in the year 1987. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Clerk on 01.10.1993 and worked in that capacity on a pay-scale of Rs.975/- - 1700/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as an Accountant in the pay- scale of Rs.1190/- - 2220/- vide order dated 30.01.2004 in which capacity, he has been working continuously till date. The F.I.r. that has been registered against the petitioner has leveled 9 separate charges against him. We do not find the necessity of producing each and every allegations that have been leveled against the petitioner, however, the main charge against him is that when he was Incharge of the Stores, he has favoured the parties and has received huge kickbacks in the process of procurement. It is also alleged that though the petitioner is only a High School pass and was not competent enough to hold the post of Accountant, the Bank made him an Accountant in the year 1993. It is also alleged that 3 the petitioner was made Incharge of the Loan Section and in his capacity on the said post, he has disbursed loan to several ineligible persons for the purpose of purchasing Tractors. The check period is between 1987 to 1918. The case of the State is that as per the information received by the E.O.W., the difference between his income and the expenditure during the check period is in excess by about Rs.29 Lacs.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the F.I.R. has already been enquired into a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and each and every allegation has been found to be false and he has been exonerated of all those charges in the departmental enquiry. The comparative chart showing the allegation in the F.I.R. and the enquiry by the department has been laid out in the petition from pages 14 to 21. The petitioner has also given a comparative table of income and expenditure during the check period.
5. This Court cannot hold a mini-trial at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to ascertain if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are true or motivated. The investigation is still in progress. The F.I.R. has been registered on 07.12.2017. The investigation at white collared crimes are time consuming and no period can be fixed by the Courts to conclude the investigation. Whether the facts and figures given in the F.I.R. relating to the income and expenditure of the petitioner are correct or not cannot be gone into by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The plenary powers of the High Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be exercised in those rare situations as has been mentioned in the case of State of Haryana Vs. 4 Bhajanlal , reported in _______________, by which the Supreme Court has given seven illustrative instances in which the F.I.R. or a criminal proceeding can be quashed against the petitioner. None of those instances include or authorize the High Court to carry out a roving enquiry, examining the littigrity of the allegation to ascertain whether the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. are true or motivated. At this stage, this Court only has to see whether the allegations in the F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not. Having gone through the F.I.R., this Court is unable to brush aside the allegations leveled therein, which prima-facie discloses the commission of an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (prior to amendment). It however goes without saying that an investigation is an executive action by the Police. It has legal consequences. An investigation does not mean merely examining the case from the side of the complainant and sending up the person to trial. It also involves in certain cases giving the accused an opportunity of explaining the circumstances against him. The purpose of an investigation is to unearth the truth, for which, sometimes it is essential to examine the accused of the crime and record his statement also. Giving an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances arising against him may not be essential in open and shut cases, where the overwhelming evidence is of such a sterling nature that the guilt of the accused is a glaring probability on account of which his statement may not be essential. In such a situation, the accused may himself want to exercise his right against self-incrimination. However, in those cases where the case putforth by the complainant is inadequate to reach a conclusion and the accused himself wants to putforth his defence, which the accused 5 feels or requires to unearth the truth, the Police cannot deny taking on record such material that may be given by the accused in the course of investigation. In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of State Inspector of Police, Vishakapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaran Karri , reported in _________________, wherein, the Supreme Court has held -
"Illegality apart, the manner in which the investigation was conducted is condemnable. The least that a Court of law would expect from the prosecution is that the investigation would be fair one. It would not only be carried out from the stand of the prosecution, but also the defence, particularly, in view of the fact that the onus to prove may shift to the accused at a later stage ."
6. Merely because, the departmental enquiry has exonerated the petitioner of the same charges which are subject matter of the F.I.R., does not entitle a quashment of the F.I.R.in favour of the petitioner. The ambit and scope of proceeding in a departmental enquiry are completely different from that in a criminal investigation. In a departmental enquiry, the main purpose is to assess if the delinquent officer is guilty of misconduct whereas, in a criminal investigation, the aim is to find out whether the accused is guilty of having committed the offence alleged against him. Where in a departmental proceeding the standard of evidence is on preponderance of probability, which is the same as in a civil case, it is much higher in a criminal case being beyond reasonable doubt. The charge against the petitioner is of having amassed wealth beyond his known source of income. Being in possession of wealth beyond known source of income is by itself not an offence. It is the inability of the accused to explain for it. Where an 6 explanation is given by the accused and the same adequately explains him being in possession of assets beyond his official income, then the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, will not be made out. Under the circumstances, having gone through the F.I.R., this Court is of the opinion that prima-facie, there is sufficient material on record to warrant an investigation against the petitioner. Admittedly, the investigation has not yet concluded.
7. In view of preceding analysis, the submissions putforth on behalf of the petitioner do not convince us and so the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the Police shall take into account the explanation of the petitioner with regard to his assets in line with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Sankaram Karri (supra), during the course of investigation.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Atul Sreedharan )
Judge Judge
a.
ASHISH
Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
DATTA
Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=39687ae2c05d9fbaae8af68c
d0db0f2d72ea51435fe1da821e718b7
963f8eeba, cn=ASHISH DATTA
Date: 2020.01.31 16:58:14 +05'30'