Delhi District Court
Mtnl Ltd vs The State on 31 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) ACT
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CR No. 414 of 2018
MTNL Ltd
Through DGM (IT)
MTNL, CGO Complex
New Delhi ..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State
2 Telecom Watchdog
Through its Secretary
Mr.Anil Kumar
B5/51, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi ..........Respondents
Instituted on : 06.06. 2018 Argued on : 21.08.2018 Decided on : 31.08.2018 O R D E R 1 The revisionist has impugned the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court vide which application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC of R2 was allowed and directions were issued to register FIR against the revisionist. 2 The revision has been filed on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has ignored the section 197 CrPC which makes it mandatory to take previous sanction of the Central Government before taking cognizance of such offence against the public servants. The issue of bar u/s 197 CrPC is not dealt by the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the status reports dated 26.7.2016 and MTNL v. The State - CR No. 414 of 2018 1/5 2.2.2018 filed by the investigating officer. The reports of the IO show that no cognizable offence is made out. Ld. Trial Court is bound to apply its mind to such reports and discuss their contents before proceeding further. The complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence and complaint is filed with a motive to harass him. Hence, this revision.
3 Notice of the petition is given to the respondents.
4 The facts of the case are like this. The R2 has filed a complaint against the revisionist with the allegations that R2 is a NGO called Telecome Watchdog working in the field of Telecommunication. On 28.10.2015 a complaint was given to SHO, PS, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi regarding criminal misappropriation of the govt. owned property consisting of mobile phones worth Rs. 1,22,090/ by the revisionist and others. MTNL is a government owned company and revisionist is supposed to safeguard the government property being a part of Top Management. On 21.7.2015 MTNL has purchased 7 HTC Desire 826 mobile phones costing Rs. 24418/ each. On 6.8.2015 MTNL has purchased one premium mobile phone HTC one E9+ for Rs. 33672/. The revisionist has kept six phones with him and one phone each was given to two Directors on Board of MTNL. The revisionist did not issue any receipt. The revisionist is entitled for one phone. He has grabbed 5 phones illegally and without any authorization.
5 On 31.7.2015 the Accounts Officer Sh S S Banjara, DGM has asked MTNL v. The State - CR No. 414 of 2018 2/5 for the details of the officers to whom phones have been given but no such detail was given. On 12.8.2015 the two Directors have acknowledged the receipt of one phone each but the revisionist did not give receipt for six phones. The revisionist has misused his official position by misappropriating the government property and committed an offence of criminal breach of trust.
6 The status report was called from the police. The police have filed the status reports dated 8.6.2016 and 5.10.2016. Ld. Trial Court after perusing the status reports and entire record of the case has directed SHO, PS, Lodhi Colony to register the FIR against the revisionist under appropriate sections. 7 Ld. Sr. Counsel for the revisionist has fairly conceded that provision of Sec. 197 CrPC is not applicable to the public sector undertakings. 8 R2 has fairly conceded that there is no irregularity in the purchase of mobile phones by MTNL.
9 Ld. Sr. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that there is no misuse of power on the part of the revisionist. He further submitted that mobile phones have been distributed amongst the officers of MTNL. He further submitted that a thorough inquiry has been conducted up to top level but nothing was found against the revisionist. He further submitted that the reports filed by the IO show that no cognizable offence is made out against the revisionist. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has not discussed those reports in the order while taking the MTNL v. The State - CR No. 414 of 2018 3/5 contrary view and thus order is bad in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance upon "Harpal Singh Arora and Ors v. State & Ors", 2008 (103) DRJ 282 and "Dr. Rajni Palriwala v. Dr. D Mohan& Anr." ILR (2009) IV, Delhi 760. 10 R2 submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. Trial Court as status reports filed by the IO were duly perused which is apparent from the order itself.
11 Heard and perused the record.
12 A perusal of the Ld. Trial Court shows that status report was called from the police on the complaint filed by R2. The status report dated 8.6.2016 shows that the matter relates to officials of MTNL. The original complaint was sent to CVO/MTNL for necessary action and request was made to CVO to supply the inquiry report which has not been received. No cognizable offence is made out. 13 A status report dated 5.10.2016 was also filed by the police which shows that six smart phones were given to different officers of MTNL and remaining two were utilized by CMD, MTNL for performing, monitoring of net work and other purposes. No cognizable offence is made out. The reply received from DGM, Vigilance was annexed with the status report. 14 The police have filed status reports which show that no cognizable offence is made out. The said reports were perused by the Ld. Trial Court. 15 The conclusion drawn by the police is not binding upon the Court. MTNL v. The State - CR No. 414 of 2018 4/5 The police have filed the status report showing that no cognizable offence is made out. The report cannot be lightly brushed aside. The Court has to give reasons in order to differ with the report filed by the police before passing an order for registration of FIR. Ld. Trial Court has not discussed the status reports in the order before taking a contrary view. The reasons are not given in the order why Ld. Trial Court is differing with the status reports filed by the police. The reports are not discussed in the order by the Ld. Trial Court. Support is drawn from Harpal Singh Arora & Ors v. State & Ors and Dr. Rajnish Palriwala v. Dr. D. Mohan & Ors (supra).
16 Keeping in view afore discussion coupled with the case law relied upon, the order dated 30.5.2018 is set aside.
17 The case is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court to pass a fresh speaking order after considering the entire material on record and hearing R2. 18 R2 is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 7.9.2018. 19 The revision is disposed off.
20 Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
21 Revision file be consigned to records.
announced in the
open court on
31st August, 2018 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)
Add. Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
MTNL v. The State - CR No. 414 of 2018 5/5