AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri , J.—The instant criminal revision has arisen in this way -
The first respondent herein, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. CB CID, Erode Unit, registered a case against the petitioner herein, respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also against one Paramasivam alleging that during the period from 26.12.1994 to 25.12.1995. the said persons conspired with one another and dishonestly allowed the suppliers of (i)bus body kits (2) seat assembly. (3)spares and (4) tickets to the Jeeva Transport Corporation to misappropriate the funds of the transport corporation to the tune of Rs.85,92,426.50 p. The charge against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were also framed for commission of offence u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge No.l. Chennai took the matter on file in Spl. C.C.No.8 of 1997 and proceeded with the trial. More than 78 witnesses have been examined. At this stage, the petitioner has come forward with a petition u/s 319 Cr.P.C. contending that the suppliers who have given evidence on behalf of the transport Corporation have stated that they were also instrumental in commission of crime and therefore they should also be included as accused for commission of offence u/s 409 IPC
The learned Counsel for the first respondent has filed objections stating that the petitioner stands charged of committing offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as per Section 24 of the said Act. the witness ought to have given statement before the investigating officer enjoying an immunity from being prosecuted.
The learned special Judge accepted the contentions of the first respondent and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision.
Heard both the sides. The case against the petitioner is that he was the Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation at the relevant time and he dishonestly allowed the suppliers to misappropriate the funds and thereby committing offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w.13(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge No.2 framed is as under:-
SECONDLY - That you Al in furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction and at the same place and during the period from 26.12.1994 to 25 12.1995. that you Al being a public servant in the capacity us Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation Limited, Erode, who was having dominion over the funds of the above corporation committed criminal breach of trust on the funds of the said corporation to a total sum of Rs.85,92,426.50 in the purchase of bus body kits, seat assemblies, spare parts and printing of bus tickets and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 409 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court:-
Charge No.7 framed runs as under: -
SEVENTHLY. That you Al. in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction in the same place and during die period from 20.12.1994 to 25.12.1995 you A1 being a public servant, employed as the Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation, Erode dishonestly allowed the said suppliers to misappropriate the funds of the said corporation to a total sum of Rs.85,92,420.50 which was under his control as public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 19XX and within the cognizance of this Court
There are specific charges against Al for alleged commission of offence u/s 409 I.P.C.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised a plea before the Special Court that both the charges are incongruous and contradictory-, in that one charge is to the effect that the petitioner committed offence u/s 409 I.PC. whereas the other charge is that he dishonestly allowed the other persons to commit misappropriation and therefore committed an offence u/s 13(21 read with Section 13(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges can be amended at any tune, if it is made out that they are conflicting or contradictory. The Special Court has not considered this aspect. I am also not going to consider this, because the petition itself is to implead certain other witnesses as accused on the ground that they complacency in the offence
According to the petitioner, four categories of suppliers should be arrayed as accused. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is ample material available from the evidence of Sridhar who was examined as P W 73 and Velnniruganantham. who was examined as P W 74 to the effect that some of the ticket printers formed an association for the purpose of giving bribe to the officials and thus they were also parties to crime committed The learned Counsel drew my attention to the evidence of P W.74. Velnniruganantham. wherein he has stated as under -
and the evidence of P.W. 73. Shridharan, wherein he has stated as under:-
The only question is whether by virtue of these statements given by these witnesses whether they and the other persons should be arrayed as accused. Careful perusal of their evidence would go to show that there had been demand to pay bribe and an association was formed to work out the ways and means to meet the demand. At this juncture, I am reminded of the ''Panchathantlura Story" where the animals in the jungle met and decide that one of them in turns should offer itself as prey to the Lion which was sporadically killing the animals. It cannot be said that the animals willingly agreed to fall as prey to the Lion
In every case of corruption, there is always meeting of the hands of the giver and the taker either directly or through some Indian. In some cases, the givers hand may offer, but the mind will be unwilling and in some cases, the givers hand may follow the temptation, but the acceptor may not be willing to receive. In the first case, the initiative and invitation are from the acceptor and in the second case, they are from the giver.
Let us now consider the provision of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act recites as under:-
24.Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution: -
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person m any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or u/s 13 or But, it would not apply to a case where there is a demand and an obtainment by the public servant If the argument of the learned Counsel is accepted that this section would offer protection to the person who voluntarily giving any gratification or valuable things, then it is of the more fair that unwilling giver gets more protection The learned Counsel also argued that Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would apply to a decoy witness and unwilling officers. But, it will not apply to the other persons. The learned Counsel drew an analogy with reference to Section 7(3) of the Down Prohibition Act. The learned Counsel also cited a decision reported in In Re: K.V. Ayyaswamy, where a person giving the bribe is also treated as accomplice For the same proposition, the learned Counsel cited the decision reported in P. Lasma Goud v. State of A. P. and Another ( 2000 (1) Cri 574), which has no Bearing to the facts of the instant case and Kishun Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, The fact that question of bribe would arise when there are offer and acceptance or a demand and offer Therefore, in matters of this type, both the giver and receiver perpetuate the offence, but the giver has a protection from prosecution by virtue of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Section 24 does not discriminate between a person who offers willingly or unwillingly It only refers to a person who offered or agreed to offer any gratification to the public servant. It therefore follows that the four ticket printers may not or may have participated in the offence, though enjoying a protection u/s 24 of the Prevention of Corruption act They enjoy protection even from the purview of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act says that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the tune being in force, which1 would include the Criminal Procedure Code also. I am of the view that the learned Special Judge has rightly dismissed the petition This Criminal Revision is therefore dismissed Consequently. Crl.MP.No.4189 of 2000 is also dismissed