भ्रष्टाचार कोर्ट ने एसपी और थाना प्रभारी सुपेला , जिला दुर्ग की एसीबी ENQUIRY REPORT मांगी। माइनिंग माफिया से साठगांठ का आरोप
Durg, CG State: Corruption Court Durg Under PC act 1988 and Special Judge Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tamak Ordered preliminary enquiry of corruption complaint against SHO Durgesh Sharma , Supela Police Station and SP durg Police Shalabh Kumar Sinha . There is allegation that both the officers has taken bribe from mining mafia and colonizer Krishna Grand city Khoka Bhilai for illegal mining and transportation . The Builder has used thefted minor minerals ie without TP in construction work and state incurred loss of Rs 70 Cr of royalty and penalty. Illegal mining and transportation is offence under IPC 379,413, 420,120B etc with section 21 of MMDR .
No preliminary enquiry done as per Lalita Kumari SC Order and registered FIR . SP and SHO taken huge advantage from mining mafia to avoid action. During hearing complainant said that both have huge disproprionate assests and done crime under section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988 and have no protection under 17 A of PC act 1988 as per Delhi and Kerla HC order.
ACB raipur officer confirmed court notice and soon they will initiate enquiry and submit report.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT, DURG
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. MJC CR /19/2024 (FILING) Police Station- ACB DURG
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1.SAPAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Male , Age 47 , Occup:
Media reporter (Legal)
D 102 , Natraj Darshan,
Ganesh Nagar Chowk,
Dombivali West , Thane
421202
Cell 9702859636 , Email indiartinews@gmail.com
2. VEERENDRA ABHISHEK
Male Age 51 , Occup : Media
Rajnandgaon (CG) 491441
Cell 7000288849 ...Complainant
VERSUS
1.
DURGESH SHARMA
Age 40 Approx,
Male , Occp: SHO SUPELA
|
SUPELA Police Station , DURG |
Cell 9479192027
2.
SHALABH KUMAR SINHA
|
Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: SP SP Office , Durg |
3.
STATE OF CG
(Through
ACB Durg ) ........ Accused
COMPLAINT
UNDER SECTION 156 (3) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
CITATIONS Section 17A : NO PROTECTION FOR CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANT
In Devender Kumar v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 (1) Crimes
726, the Delhi High Court has observed as follows:
"Section 17A as
it reads and the legislative intent in its enactment can only be to
protect public servants in the bonafide discharge of official functions or
duties. However, when the act of a
public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offence, prior approval
of the Government would not be necessary".
In T.O.Sooraj v.
State of Kerala : 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2896, this Court
has held as follows:
"The expression "discharge of his official functions or
duties" in Section 17A of the Act reflects the
legislative intent that the protection
envisaged is not a blanket protection. The purpose is to protect an honest
and responsible public servant if the recommendation made or decision taken by
him is in discharge of his official functions or duties. As a necessary
corollary, previous approval is required only if the recommendation made or
decision taken is directly concerned with the official functions or duties of
the public servant. When a
recommendation or decision is made by a public servant, which is not directly
and reasonably connected with his official functions or duties, he is not
entitled to get the protection under Section 17A of
the Act".
Kerala High Court
Venugopal V vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA
PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 3765 OF 2021
48. Even otherwise, as far as the present
case is concerned, for two reasons, previous approval of the competent
authority under Section 17A of
the Act was not necessary for registration of Annexure-A1 FIR and the
investigation pursuant to it. In the Crl.M.C.No.3765/2021 first place, the
complaint was filed in the competent court before the introduction of Section 17A in the Act and therefore, the
said provision has no application to the proceedings commenced on the basis of
that complaint. In the second place,
accepting bribe or making attempt to obtain bribe, the act allegedly committed
by the the petitioners, cannot be considered as an act done by them in
discharge of their official functions or duties. Such act has no reasonable and
direct connection with their official functions or duties.
49. In the light of the conclusions above,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE
SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Shri
Baini Prasad Chansoriya Versus The State Of Madhya ...Madhya
Pradesh High
Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge). CRR, 1629 of 2022, Judgment Date: Dec
09, 2022
THE SPECIAL COURT IS THUS NOT PREVENTED FROM CONDUCTING
ENQUIRY/INQUIRY AT ITS OWN LEVEL WHILE DEALING WITH AN APPLICATION U/S. 156(3) CR. P.C. BUT
WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF THE POLICE.
“10.4 Thirdly, Sec. 17-A does not bar the Special Court
from conducting enquiry or inquiry (as defined in Sec. 2(g) Cr.P.C.). Argument
may be raised that though Special Court is not statutorily barred from
conducting enquiry/inquiry but occasions may arise where the Special Court for
aid and assistance may direct Police to conduct enquiry/inquiry leading to an
impasse in the face of statutory bar u/S.17-A prohibiting Police Officer from
proceeding ahead. True it is that Police Officer alone has been restrained from
conducting enquiry/inquiry/investigation but the said argument can be put to
rest by the well established principle of law that what cannot be done directly
in law also cannot be done indirectly. [See: Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another, (2010) 15 SCC 118 Para 7). Therefore, the enquiry/inquiry can very
well be conducted u/S. 17-A by Special Court but without involving the police. The Special Court is thus not prevented
from conducting enquiry/inquiry at its own level while dealing with an application
u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. but without assistance of the police. In this manner, the
sweep, extent and object of Sec. 17-A remains unoffended.”
DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS: 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.
Comments
Post a Comment