Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, News DELHI
Presided over by: Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
CC No.78/2024
State v Raj Kumar
FIR No.29/2007
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
20.09.2024
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. PP for State.
IO Inspector Ranvir is present.
1. This is a fresh chargesheet.
2. I have perused the chargesheet to ascertain whether the case is fit for
taking cognizance of the offences.
3. A careful scrutiny is undertaken in line with the mandate given to Courts
by successive decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. One such decision is the
case of Joshinder Yadav v State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 259 of 2009 decided
by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20 January, 2014, in which it was observed as
follows:
“In a criminal trial the Investigating Officer, the Prosecutor and the Court play a
very important role. The court’s prime duty is to find out the truth. The
Investigating Officer, the Prosecutor and the Courts must work in sync and
ensure that the guilty are punished by bringing on record adequate credible legal
evidence. If the Investigating Officer stumbles, the Prosecutor must pull him up
and take necessary steps to rectify the lacunae. The Criminal Court must be
alert, it must oversee their actions and, in case, it suspects foul play, it must use
its vast powers and frustrate any attempt to set at naught a genuine
prosecution.”
4. As per allegations, an inquiry has been carried out which has revealed
that in the matter of distribution of stipend to trainees under the Computer
Training Scheme for trainees from the Scheduled Caste community, it was found
1
-- 1 of 4 --
that the accused person had been entrusted the stipend but he did not pay the
same to the deserving candidates and instead misappropriated the same. The
idea behind the scheme was to support persons from the backward community
who have already faced social discrimination. The said scheme was frustrated
since the candidates were deprived of the money which they were due to
receive. It is also alleged that signatures on vouchers had been forged. The
signatures were an acknolwedgment of the receipt of stipend.
5. It is not known as to why the Anti-Corruption Branch has not invoked the
provisions of Section 409 of IPC against the accused even though the
allegations clearly reveal that the money had been entrusted to the accused with
a view to have it disbursed as stipend and this money was not disbursed and
was also not returned. No explaination has been furnished by the IO in this
behalf.
6. As to whether the said money has been recovered, the IO has replied in
the negative. Not only this, the IO has submitted that he was unable to establish
the identity of the person who had forged signatures on the vouchers.
7. The investigating officer did not arrest the accused. The Anti-Corruption
Branch made hardly any effort to recover government money. Sustained
interrogation of the accused was not attempted. Ordinarily, it is the discretion of
the investigating agency whether or not to arrest the accused. However, this
discretion cannot be exercised in a mala fide manner or as per the whims of the
investigating agency. In the present case, this discretion seems to have been
actuated by extraneous reasons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756, held as follows:
“The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within
two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the
Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district
for the reasons to be recorded in writing”.
8. In the present case, the record does not show any such decision having
been taken and having been so forwarded. The direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been blatantly disregarded.
2
-- 2 of 4 --
9. It is only on interrogation that the accused may have revealed the identity
of the person who forged the signatures. However, the investigating agency did
not bother to find out the identity of such a person. Also, Proviso of Section 311
A of Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that specimen signatures can be
ordered to be given after arrest of the accused. That too did not invite the
attention of the Anti-Corruption Branch. This is a reminder of the words, “The law
should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free and, those who
seek its protection lose hope", quoted from Jennison v. Backer (1972 (1) All E.R.
1006), extracted in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs State of Gujarat, AIR
2004 SC 3114.
10. Like many other cases of the Anti-Corruption Branch, this case too
remained pending with different investigating officers of the Branch for over 15
years. Despite this, clearly no steps were being taken during a large part of the
said one and half decades of the investigation.
11. In Dayal Singh vs State of Uttranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263, the Supreme
Court has held that the Court is bound to record any deliberate dereliction of
duty, designed defective investigation, internal acts of omission and commission.
12. This Court has already written to the DCP and Joint Commissioner of the
Anti-Corruption Branch expressing its anguish in several cases. It has not borne
fruit. Simply pressurizing the investigating officers to toss files into the docket of
the Court will not serve any purpose. It is expected that senior officers whose
duty it is to supervise the investigation are sensitized to understand the facts of
their cases and to provide guidance to investigating officers on the manner in
which they must proceed. It is hoped that senior officers start taking interest in
cases that are being investigated under their authority. Every possible effort
should be made to have robust investigation showing a genuine attempt to find
the guilty and to bring them to justice. That would ensure instances like the
present, where no effort has been made to recover government money or to
ascertain the identity of the forger, do not arise. If the Anti-Corruption Branch still
remains unwilling to probe into its cases and thereby betray the trust reposed in
them by the legislative and administrative authorities, the government may
3
-- 3 of 4 --
consider referring cases to CBI so that a fair and complete investigation is
carried out.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of Government of NCT
of Delhi for his information.
Renotify on 25.11.2024.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, News Delhi
20.09.2024
4
-- 4 of 4 --