HIGH COURTOF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR PBTITIONBR VERSU8 VISBP^SBSVT cRjujf, No.sas/aoio Sfari Abhay Kuatar Gupta, S/o Late Madan Mohaa Gupta, Agcd about 45 years, Deputy Conunandant (Under suspeasion) CISF, DM-1 BataUfon Muudali, Distt. Cuttack (OrisssO. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Distt. Raipur - MISC. PETITION U/S 482 OF CMMmAL PROCBDURB CODE FOR QUJ^HMBNT OF CainaE N0. 12/07 REXSISTERBD AT ANTI CORRUPTION BUREA.U. RABPUR. (SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri PrafiiU N. Bharat, Advocate for the petitidnier. Shri Rakesh Kuinar Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/ Respondcnt. ORAL- ORDEK (Passedon VT/OtfMll) . By fhis petition under Section 482 of the Code of Craainal Pnxiedure, 1973 (iu short 'ftie Codel petittoner has prayed for quashment of criaiiaal proccediag pending bcfore fhe Special Judge, Diug ia special case No. 1/08 aad quashment offhe charge sheet in crime No. 12/07 registered at Anti Corruption Biireau, Raipur agamst fh.e petitioner. 1. As per brief facts, on fhe basis of copy of cliai^e shcet and other docuinents filed on behatfofthe petitioaer, piesent petitioner was worldng as Deputy Commandaat in CISF, at the relevant time he was working at Diug. One main accused Pawaa Kiuuar Lakhotia alias Pawau Maheshwari has tried to offer bribe ofRs. 5,00,000/- to complauiant ShriTaiactaand Sahu then Member of Parliaincnt a PubUc Servaat for not takiag aay interest/action against Pawan Kuinar Lakhotia lelating to hls iUegal aod cnmmal activities. As per copy of docuiaents, Pawan Kumar Lakhotia contacted with aforesaid Public Servaut by tetephone and has also inct ..-^e5=S^S.S533a^ 1'*8!^\\ ^a' .<-3&,&., s fc-isSrysa'l 9 sii^y^j . "^^ "%,._3,^ '•"W-i.Ssy. ;nr 3. 4. persoiiatty and reqiicsted him thatby his act, hc fa in trouble. He atoo requested for wifhdrawalof complaint, he has eSao requcsted him that he has ready to ptease/scrve him which hc dexiied and direeted dtat he is not a maa of aforesaid aatiue and he is iiot ia need of money. Thereafiter on 31/07/2007 ateveiiiug present petitioner after obtaiaing pennission to meet the PubUc Servant vteited his ofiSce and met with complsdiiant, durlag discussion willi the eomplainant, present petitioaer caavassed for maia accused Pawaa Kumar Lakhotia. Hc also told fhe PubUc Servaat that Pawan Kiunar Lakhotia is good man aiui he wfll setid Iteiwan Kzuaar LaKhotia to Tiini. He also told fhat wlfhout inaaaging to aH yersons aforesaM work could not be possible, Shri Tarachaad Sahu annoyed on petitioner and directed hiin not to send aay pcrson to hnn fhereafter on 02/08/2007 Pawan Kuinar Lakhotia told faim that he is coming wifh Rs. 5,00,000/-. Reportwas inade to State Anti CorruptioH Burcau, Ralpur, a teap parly was ananged, Pawaa Kuaiar Lakhotia was caught red-handed while he was offering bribe ofRs. 5,00,000/- to Shri TaiacbsasS. Sahu, a Public Servaat. After coxapletion of investigation, charge sheet was fited before fhe Special Judge, Diug who took cogiiizauce for the oflfeace puxushabte under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, t9S8 (ia short thc Acf). Leamed couasel fer thc parties are heard. :. Leamed counsel for the petitioaer vcheinently argued that autiaffly Shn Tarachand Sahu, Member of Parliaaient a Public Servant has not aiade aay coiaplaiut s^amst fhe prcsent petitioaier relating to aay abatemeat of fhe oflfence but aftcr laying of trap, when lus statement was tBcotded under Sectfon 161 of the Code then he has stated aforesaid stateaieat relatmg to prescnt petitioner. Present petitioaer is a Member of CISF ^s i%'-""^' !f '^,'" .•' ': -^' "\ controUed by fhe Central Govenuaaent fhcreforc, Anti Corruptum Burcau of State was not empowered to invest4;ate the offence relating to Meaubcr of CISF controUed by Central Govenuaent 5. Lcamed counsel for the petitioner furfher argucd that tf thc stateiarait of Shri Tarachand Sahu, Membcr of Parlmment aad Us P.A. Shri Ram Krishna Gupta is admitted m its facc value fhcn saiae wauld iM»t be sufficient for conviction ofthe petitioaer underSectton 12 oftheAct 6. Leamed counsel for ttie petidoner also aa'gucd thatatfhe veised, itcanfce treated advice or recommendation to co-accused which te aot oflfence puiushable under Section 12 offhe Act 7. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioiar placed rdiauce iu the matter of Purashothaman and othw v. State of Kerda1 ia which High Court of Kerala has held that naere advice is not piuushable under Section 12 of the Act. 8. On llie other haad, leamed coimsel for the resptaident^State opposed (hc petition and submits fhat alfhough compiainant has not inade any altegation ^ainst thc pctitioner in his inittel eoiaplaint but ta his statement, he has clearty made aUcgation fhat pxesent petittoner has instigated aud abated fhc complauiant to receive bribe which fa ofiTence pimistiabk uader Scctfon 12 ofthe Act His stateiaeut is ccaToborated by fhe evideace of Shri Ram. Krishaa Gupta his P.A. Even pscsent pctitioaer has admitted fhe fact in his Dcpartmcat Enquuy fhat he bas visited the coxaplainaat a Meaaber of Parliamcnt without obtaiaing any perausswn flx>m hte supcrior Officerwhlch con»boratethe fect that present petitiona" has visited fhe complaniant aad dhated fhe offeace pnnishahte luriler Sections 7 & 11 offhe Act. / ' V 1989 (2) CrimesPage44 i'S-- .:^'-:' Scopcof Sectfon 482 ofthe Code fes veay Mnutod. In afl cascs crfiBegaMly or u-Eegularily High Coiutis not required to eseercise its mbCTC&tjurtodiction, It shouM. be uscd sparingty in an excepttoaal circuiastaaces, whfle -t, dealiagwifh cxeidse ofpower iinder Scction 482 offhe Code in the matter of M/s. Zaada Phturmaceutlcal Warka Ltd. and othew v. Nd. SlianrfU Haqne aad otl*e»»3the Supreme Courthas held fhus:- "8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a caae of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powera on the High i Court. It only saves the inherent power which Uie Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisa^es ; three circumstances under which the toherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to giwe effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process ofcourt, and (iii) to otherwise secure the endsof justice. It is neither possibfe nor desirable to lay dewn any inflexible rule which would govem the exercise of inherent , jurisdiction. No Icgislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may poasibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express proviskins of law which are necessaiy for propa- discharge of functions and duties imposed upon fcem by law. That is the doctrine which finds expresaion in the section which merely recognizes and preserve»inhei-ent powers of the Hi^i Courts. All courts, whether civU or criminal possess.in the absence ofany express pramsion, as inherent in their constitution, all such pcwers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "guando lex aSquid aficui conoedit, oonoedere vuSehir et id sinequo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without whteh it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or reviBion. Inherent v 'AIR2005SC3 ^ ->- 10. 11. juri8dietk>ii under the sectkai thau^i wide haa to be : exercised sparingly, caTefully and with eaution and on^r when such exercise is justified by the tests specifiGa^ laid down in the section itself. It is to he exeroised esc ;„ detiito justitiue to do real and aubstantial justica for the administration of whieh alone courts exist. Authorily of the eourt esdsts fbr advancement crfjustfce and itany^ attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce ' ; injustice, the ccnirt has power to prevent abuse. It WRUI*il be an abuse of process of the court to allow any actk>n,., . •whichwould result in injustice and prevent promcAign of , jusUce. In exercise of the powers court would bejustifie^ - to quash any proceeding if it finds that . initiation/continuance of it aniounts to abuae o£ the process of court or quashing of these pnx»edin®iwould , otherwise serve the ends ofjustice. When no offence is disclosed by the oomplalnt, the eourt may exanane ttte < question of fact. When a complaint is sou^lt to be : quashed, it is permissible to look into the materiala to . assess -what the coinplainant has alleged and whcther any oflence is made out even if the allegations are acoepted iti . toto." Present petitloner 1aas not fited aay pettdon befbre the trial C&urt fw droppiag of proceeding or Iiis dischaige oa fhe grouad that State Antl Corruptfon Bureau te aot eiapowcred to investigate fhc offcnce related to member of CISF. Ptetitioner is having alteraate remedy t& raise the aforesaid ground bcfore fhe trial Coiu-t fherefore at ftus stttge aay findiag relating to aforesaid groitud is aot caU for. He may raise fhe p'ouad befi»Ee fheTrialCourt. As per statement of fhe complainant Shn Tarachand Sahu, Membw of ParMament recorded under Section 161 ofthe Code admittiedfy co-accused Pawan Kumar Laldiotia was in regular contact wifh complainaut. Hewas ttyiag to give bribe to hini and flinaUy he attetupted to give bribe Rs. 5,00000/- to fhc petitioner. As per his statement, during caurse of aforesaid transaction on 31/07/2007 picseat petitioner In-chaxge of Power Plaiat F'urena and Pcmrer Rlaint Bhilai where co-accused I'awaa Kiunar Lakhotia was running his business after obtaming pei-misMon finm. complainant has vfaited lum and caavassed Pawaa Kuaaar Lakhotia and requested tiie complainaat that SS^ slhf t am^ TRT ^ur ^gr ^l 'S^^f V^l ^ frn «i«i«t>14^ui fe4 'qs ^FI slai iNt tt <t<itri 4^sr fen ?hi(i Theteaflaer on 2/8/2007 co-accused Panrem. Kiuaar LaKhotia visited the affice of complainant wifh Rs. 5,00,000/- aad tried to give the toribe to compliant. OfiTence pnnishabte undcr Sectton 12 offhe Act vs related to abatement of fhe offence punishable uader Sections 7 & 11 offhe Act le. for deaiand and acceptancebribe bythe Pubfic Servant. 12. Iu case of Putnsliotltaaian aad othw (Snpr^ Hi^i Court ofKerala has hcld that student laet with teacher about another teacher whoxa fhe petltioner of that casc advfaed that teacher is a man of laoney ininded thereafter students gavc moncy to flrst pereon. Definitely, tiiat acc'used has tnerety advised or informed the peraon about fhe spectfic chaaacter of fliird person. Hc fe aeither aided nor abated ttie offencc. In fhe present case fhere was no occasion to meet or wsst the coinplaiaaat who was PoUtical Person by fhe pctitioncr wifhout any cogent reeuson. As per Statcment offhe complainant piesent petitioner has virited him during (he period of regular contact of co-accused Piawan Kuiaar Laldwtia, hc . caavassed fi»rPawan Kumar Lakhotia and request^d the contplainamt fhat Pawau Kiunar Lakhotia is a good anau. He wffll send Pawan Knnaar Lakhotia to hitn he also requcsted to inform the complainaat (hat without inanagiag to aB work would not be possibte and the acoused Paassca :^3^ \ -7Z — Kumar Lakhotia would have wsmaged. all persoiis, This statenacnt/rcquest of present petitioner clcady revcals that hc has canvassed for co-accuaed Pawan Kumar Lakhotia. He has abated ttie complainaat for rccenring bribe fi?om Pasfsai Kumar Lakfaotia and as a result wifhin 2 days Pawan Kumar Lakhotia yisited fhc house of complainant and offered bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/- whichIsas bcen seized by thc trap party. 13. If fhe aforesaM xaaterial is admitted by fhe petittoner fhcn saxne would be sufiB.caent for conviction of fhe petitioner uiader Scctina 12 of ttie Act Consequently, chaiy shect or peiidency of criminal proccectmg would not be ganunxUcss or abuse offhe process ofthc Court. I do not find aiqr scope fbr interiereuce ia csceroisc of cxtx'aonliaEuy inherent .turisdiction ftw ; quashment of the criminal proceediag aiid charge sheet Conacquentfy, pctition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismtesed. Hcwever, pctltioncr is at libcrty to raise fhe questikin of coinpeteney of invest^ation before Ibc trial Court 4 14. AU iiiterua appUcattons are also dismtesed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge r^