WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY IN PRECOGNIZABLE STAGE JUDGE GIVEN CLEAN CHIT WITH SUPPRESSION OF FACT
VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY IS MANDATORY IN CORRUPTION CASE
करप्शन कोर्ट ने नई परिभाषा दी की काम नहीं करना करप्शन नहीं होता, बिना प्रारंभिक इन्क्वारी के क्लीन चिट दे दी
Dewas MP State.: A Complaint
under Prevention of corruption act 1988 was filed before Special court Under PC
act before ADJ 1 Dewas Shri Manish Singh Thakur. The Complaint was that the SHO
BNP Mukesh Ijjardar was not taking action in cognizable offence under IPC
420,120b, 468 against school management inspite of evidence submitted since
last 1.5 years . He also neglected DLSA secretary letter to conduct
investigation in cognizable offence.
The complainant made allegation
that SHO has taken bribe from accused and denying action in cognizable offence.
He dont follow Lalita Kumari order with time limit of 2 weeks and various circulars of Home ministry. He has
huge disproportionate assets and it is offence under IPC 166A, 409,212, with
section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988.
The complainant requested to
conduct preliminary enquiry through SP Lokayukt Ujjain or its own as per MP
High Court order. In last hearing Judge said that he will pass interim order on
next hearing. Complainant said that as per Delhi HC and Kerala HC order it is
not his part of duty to disobey SC order and rule of law, so Section 17 A
protection is not applicable to SHO.
As per MP High Court order
inspite of no sanction, Judge has to do preliminary enquiry on its own without
the help of the police. So many citations was mentioned in petition about Corruption
passed by SC order.
The Dewas Judge made new
definition to save SHO that not doing duty as per law is not part of
corruption. He did not mentioned allegation of bribe and disproportionate asset
and SC orders about corruption in order . He rejected the complaint with
suppression of fact that not doing duty as per law is not corruption.
It means dereliction of duty is
disciplinary matter not criminal matter. So how Lalu yadav, Manish Sisodia is
behind bar. In Manish Sisodia case CBI did not recovered any money from his
home then also he is behind bar in PC act with section 7 and 13. If Judge will
not conduct enquiry then how the crime will be exposed? No report called from
SP Lokayukt and new definition created against SC Order.No judicial process
followed and order passed with suppression of many fact. As per judge not
registering FIR in cognizable offence is disciplinary matter . It is honest act
of SHO to take bribe and deny action.
Now people will say that disobeying HC and SC order is not contempt it
is only disciplinary action.
Apex Court's judgment in the case of SUBRAMANIAN
SWAMY v. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 3 SCC
64. Paragraph No.68 of the said decision reads as follows:
"68.
Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept
of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the
Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public
life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic
republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes
development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the
core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that
any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion
as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a
situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to
accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks
to perpetuate it."
A Delhi court on Friday denied bail to former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in a
Prevention Of Corruption Act- An Enquiry At Pre-FIR Stage Is Not
Only Permissible But Desirable
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/28134/28134_2020_35_1501_27143_Judgement_24-Mar-2021.pdf
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363 OF 2021 (Arising from
S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6764 of 2020) Charansingh …Appellant Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others …Respondents
9.1 Thus, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and not
only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the allegations
are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the assets/properties
disproportionate to his known sources of income. After the enquiry/enquiry
at pre-registration of FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the
material collected during such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is
vexatious and/or there is no substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall
not be lodged. However, if the material discloses prima facie a commission of
the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and the criminal proceedings will
be put in motion and the further investigation will be carried out in terms of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be
permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not
and only thereafter FIR would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary
enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the
complaint is made.
9.2 Even as held by this Court
in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC
175, a GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the
commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and
the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same.
1.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT OFFICIAL DUTY
In Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 326, para 5,
this Court held that: (SCC p. 328) ''5. The
question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of
fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, etc. can he be said
to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not the official duty
of the public servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the
public funds, etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official
duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or
misappropriate the public fund, etc. It does not mean that it is integrally
connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of
the same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances,
we are of the opinion that the view
expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial court on the question of
sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.'
In a recent decision
in Rajib Ranjan v. R. Vijaykumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513, at
para 18, this Court has taken the view that: (SCC p. 521) ''18. ... even while discharging his official duties,
if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal
misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in
discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not
be attracted."
In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab:
AIR 2007 SC 1274, it has been held as follows:
"The principle of immunity protects all
acts which the public servant has to perform in the exercise of the functions
of the Government. The purpose for which they are performed protects these acts
from criminal prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but
which in reality is for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit then such
acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity".
Law with regard to order for sanction for
prosecution and when the question of sanction can be entertained, has been
summarised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab through CBI, (2016) 12 SCC 87 (para-39), as under:
"39.
The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarized hereunder :
39.1. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime.
06.04.2023 आवेदक सपन श्रीवास्तव स्वयं।
इस आदेश द्वारा आवेदक सपन श्रीवास्तव की ओर से
प्रस्तुत आवेदन-पत्र अंतर्गत धारा 156 (3) द.प्र.सं. का निराकरण
किया जा रहा है।
आवेदन-पत्र के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है, कि
आवेदक एक मीडिया रिपोर्टर है तथा उसके द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार व
अनियमितताओं के संबंध में कई मामले उच्च न्यायालय एवं
उच्चतम न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं। अनावेदक क्र. 1 थाना
बैंक नोट प्रेस के प्रभारी के पद पर होकर एक लोकसेवक है जो
अपने कर्त्तव्यों एवं दायित्वों को विधि अनुसार निर्वहन के लिए
दायित्वाधीन है लेकिन उसके द्वारा अपने कर्त्तव्यों एवं दायित्वों का
निर्वहन विधि अनुसार न करते हुए भ्रष्टाचार किया जा रहा है, जो
भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 के अनुसार
दण्डनीय है।
आवेदन-पत्र में आगे उल्लिखित है, कि अनावेदक क्रमांक 1
द्वारा सेंट्रल मालवा एकेडमी के प्रबंधन तथा काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया
स्कूल सर्टिफिकेट एक्जामिनेशन के विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज
न करके माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा ललिता कुमारी वाले
मामले में दिये गये दिशा-निर्देशों का उल्लंधन किया है, क्योंकि
दोनों संस्थान आई.सी.एस.सी./आई.एस.सी. से मान्यता प्राप्त होने
का दावा करते हैं और उन्हें ऐसी मान्यता प्राप्त नहीं है।
आवेदन-पत्र में अनावेदक क्रमांक 1 के विरूद्ध उपरोक्त
तथ्य भी कथित किये गये हैं और इसके अतिरिक्त विभिन्न न्याय
दृष्टांतों एवं विधि संबंधी उपबंधों का उल्लेख करते हुए अनावेदक
क्रमांक 1 के विरूद्ध प्राथमिक जाँच किए जाने और भा.द.संकी
धारा 166-ए (बी), 120-बी, 420, 409 सहित भ्रष्टाचार
निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 व 13 के अंतर्गत प्रथम
सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज करवाए जाने का आदेश दिये जाने की प्रार्थना
की गई है।
जहाँ तक किसी अपराध के संबंध में पुलिस द्वारा प्रथम
सूचना रिपोर्ट लेखबद्ध न किये जाने का प्रश्न है तो इस संबंध में
केवल यह उल्लेखनीय है, कि ऐसे अभिकथित अपराध के संबंध में
ही संबंधित न्यायिक मजिस्टेªट के समक्ष या तो द.प्र.सं. की धारा
156 (3) के अंतर्गत आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है या फिर
द.प्र.सं. की धारा 200 के अंतर्गत परिवाद संस्थित किया जा
सकता है।
जहाँ तक संबंधित पुलिस अधिकारी द्वारा किसी अपराध के
संबंध में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज न किये जाने के आधार पर
भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 एवं 13 के
अंतर्गत अपराध पंजीबद्ध किये जाने का प्रश्न है तो इस संबंध में
उक्त विधिक उपबंधों का उल्लेख किया जाना उचित होगा कि
भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 के अंतर्गत मात्र
इस आधार पर किसी अपराध का गठन नहीं होता है, कि
उसके द्वारा अपने कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन नहीं किया गया है। उक्त
अधिनियम की धारा 7 के अंतर्गत अपराध के गठन हेतु प्रथम
दृष्ट्या यह साक्ष्य उपलब्ध होना आवश्यक है, कि उसके द्वारा
असम्यक् लाभ अभिप्राप्त या प्रतिगृहीत किया गया अथवा ऐसा
करने का प्रयास किया गया, परंतु आवेदक की ओर से प्रस्तुत
आवेदन पूर्णतः संभावनाओं के आधार पर प्रस्तुत किया गया है।
जहाँ तक भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13
(2) के अंतर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध का प्रश्न है तो इस संबंध में भी
केवल यह उल्लेखनीय है, कि आवेदक द्वारा अपने आवेदन-पत्र में
किसी भी प्रकार से स्पष्ट अभिकथन नहीं किये गये हैं कि
अनावेदक क्रमांक 1 द्वारा अपनी पदावधि के दौरान स्वयं को किस
प्रकार अवैध रूप से साशय समृद्ध किया।
यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है, कि किसी भी लोकसेवक द्वारा
उसके पदीय कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन न किये जाने के आधार पर भले
ही वह अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही के अधीन हो, परन्तु इसके
बावजूद कोई आपराधिक मामला नहीं बनता है।
परिणामतः अनावेदक क्रमांक 1 के विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना
रिपोर्ट दर्ज किये जाने के लिए प्रथम दृष्ट्या कोई आधार नहीं है
और तदानुसार आवेदन-पत्र खारिज किया जाता है।
प्रकरण का परिणाम संबंधित पंजी में दर्ज किया जाकर
अभिलेख नियमानुसार अभिलेखागार भेजा जाए।
Comments
Post a Comment