Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

has also filed detailed written submissions. He submitted that section 6-A of the the DSPE Act was introduced by inserting section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 with effect from 11/09/2003 and prior to the amendment, a Single Directive was first issued in 1969 by the Executive and amended on many occasions. However, the relevant portion of the Single Directive was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain vs. Union of India1. He invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the said case and referred to para 44. He also invited my attention to the debate in the Parliament on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill. He then invited my attention to paras 45 and 46 of the said judgment and submitted that where the accusation was based on direct evidence and did not require any inference to be drawn depending on the decision making process including trap cases, the Single Directive could not be applied. He submitted that purpose of the Single Directive was to prevent the decision making process of officers from being subjected to scrutiny of the CBI even where the complaint 1 1998(1) SCC 226 was frivolous. He submitted that the Single Directive was meant to protect the honest decision-making officers from facing inquiries and investigations. He submitted that, however, this did not arise in cases of direct evidence such as trap cases, where the question of drawing an inference to establish corrupt motive did not arise. He then invited my attention to the report presented to the Parliament by the Joint Committee on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999. It is submitted that while interpreting section 6-A, the rule of purposive construction must be adopted to interpret section 6-A. It is necessary to see the position before it was enacted and the mischief and defect the Legislator sought to remedy has to be seen. He relied on three judgments of the Apex Court on this point viz. State of M.P. And others vs. Ram Singh1, Balram Kumawat vs. Union of India and others 2 [para 24] and in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Venku Reddy3 [para 12]. So far as the word 'involving' which is found in sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the DSPE Act is concerned, he submitted that the word 'involving' used in 1 (2000) 5 SCC 88 2 (2003) 7 SCC 628 3 (2002) 7 SCC 631 the expression 'cases involving arrest of a person on the spot' (hereinafter referred to as "the said expression") would mean the cases resulting in arrest based on direct evidence.

45. Obviously, where the accusation of corruption is based on direct evidence and it does not require any inference to be drawn depending on the decision-making process, there is no rational basis to classify them differently. In other words, if the accusation be of bribery which is supported by direct evidence of acceptance of illegal gratification by them, including trap cases, it is obvious that no other factor is relevant and the level or status of the offender is irrelevant. It is for this reason that it was contended that such cases, i.e. of bribery, including trap cases, are outside the scope of the Single Directive. After some debate at the Bar, no serious attempt was made by the learned Attorney General to support inclusion within the Single Directive of cases in which the offender is alleged to be in possession of disproportionate assets. It is clear that the accusation of possession of disproportionate assets by a person is also based on direct evidence and no factor pertaining to the expertise of decision-

23. The word 'involve', according to the Shorter Oxford dictionary, means to 'enwrap in anything, to enfold or envelop, to contain or imply'. In my view, as mentioned hereinabove, the words 'involving' or 'on the spot' cannot be read in isolation and the entire expression has to be read in the context of the provisions of section 6-A and the object for which they have been used. The object, obviously, is to carve out an exception to cases where protection is given to those employees under sub-section (1) and to bring certain cases mentioned in the said expression out of the purview of the protection granted by sub-section (1). The object, therefore, is not to give blanket protection to the employees referred to in section 6-A(1)(a) & (b) and, therefore, if a question is posed as to which are the cases involving arrest of a person on the spot, the answer obviously would be the cases similar to trap cases. Therefore, in my view, the said expression, if read as a whole, clearly would mean the cases where there is direct evidence of corruption and where there is direct demand for illegal gratification as laid down under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the judgments on which reliance is placed by both the sides, since, in these judgments, the interpretation of the word 'involving' alone is considered in the facts of the said case. The submissions made by both the Counsel for the applicants, therefore, on the interpretation of the words 'involving' and 'on the spot', cannot be accepted.

28. Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. R.R. Kishore 1 (supra). The Delhi High Court, while examining the provisions of section 6-A(2), came to the conclusion that non obstante provision was applicable only in respect of cases involving arrest of a person on the spot and, therefore, since the basic ingredient of arrest on the spot in the said case was missing, section 6-A(2) would not apply and, therefore, the requirement of prior approval as stipulated in section 6-A(1) was not diluted or dispensed with. I, with utmost respect, disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on the question of interpretation which has been given by the learned Single Judge to the words 'on the spot' or to the said expression which is found in sub-section (2). Once it is held that the said expression used in sub-section (2) includes trap cases, then non obstante clause would apply 1 142(2007) Delhi Law Times 702 and there would be no bar for the CBI authorities to make inquiry or investigation before arresting the accused in a trap case.