IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1356 OF 2004
Union of India Ors. …….. Appellants
Ramesh Gandhi ……… Respondent
J U D G E M E N T
(1.) This seductiveness arises out of a visualisation of a High Court of Calcutta antiquated 23rd November, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 352/2001. The appellants herein were a respondents in a above-mentioned Writ Petition.
(2.) An FIR came to be purebred on 15th November, 2000 in a Delhi Special Police Establishment, Ranchi Branch in Crime No. RC 13(A)/2000 (R) underneath Section 120B hearing with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) hearing with Section 13(1)(d) of a Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 conflicting 9 indicted of whom a initial indicted was a Coal Controller during a germane infer of time. The subsequent 5 indicted were a officers of Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter ‘CCL’. for short), that is a auxiliary of Coal India Limited (hereinafter ‘CIL’, for short). Accused No.9 is a Private Limited Company (hereinafter ‘private company’, for short) and indicted Nos. 7 and 8 are a members of a pronounced private company.
( 3.) The solitary respondent, Mr. Ramesh Gandhi, is one of a members of a above-mentioned private association and shown to be a seventh indicted in a above-mentioned FIR. He filed command petition No. 352/2001 on a record of a Calcutta High Court praying that a above-mentioned FIR be quashed. By a visualisation underneath appeal, a Calcutta High Court certified a command petition quashing a FIR.
( 4.) The piece of a indictment in a FIR is that all a indicted entered into a rapist swindling to consult an bootleg and unfair advantage on a above-mentioned private company. In a process, a accused, “intentionally and dishonestly” suppressed certain germane and essential contribution (in a several cases filed before a Calcutta High Court and also this Court to that a indicted were parties), that resulted in orders being inspected both by this Court as good as by a High Court enlightened to a private company.
(5.) FIR reads as follows:
“DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, RANCHI BRANCH
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
Crime No.RC 13(A)/2000(R), Date and time of Report :
15.11.2000 during 1700 Hrs.
Place of occurrence with State : Calcutta (West Bengal), Ranchi (Jharkhand)
Date and time of occurrence : 1990-91 to 2000
Name of complainant or adviser with residence : Through Source
Offence : U/s. 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Name and residence of a indicted : (1) Shri P.N. Tiwary, a afterwards Coal Controller, Calcutta (retd.)
(2) Shri R.P. Srivastava, a afterwards G.M. Sales, CCL, Ranchi (retd.)
(3) Shri S.K. Srivastava, G.M. (Sales), CCL, Ranchi
(4) Shri B. Akla, CMD, CCL, Ranchi
(5) Shri K.M. Singh, a afterwards G.M., Argada Area, CCL
(6) Shri Sudarshan Singh, a afterwards Area Sales Officer Argada Area, CCL, currently Superintending Engineer (EM), N.K. Area, CCL
(7) Shri Ramesh Gandhi, Prop. M/s. Continental Transport Constn. Corpn., (CTCC), Dhanbad (Pvt).
(8) Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC, Dhanbad (Pvt.)
(9) M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn. (CTCC), Dhanbad (Pvt.)
Action taken : Regular box purebred and hearing taken up.
Investigation Officer: Shri A. Prasad, DSP, CBI, SPE, Ranchi
A arguable information has been perceived to a outcome that Shri P.N. Tiwary, a afterwards Coal Controller (since retd.), Calcutta, Shri R.P. Srivastava, a afterwards G.M.(Sales), CCL, Ranchi (since retd.), Shri S.K. Srivastava, a afterwards GM.(Sales), CCL, Ranchi, Shri B. Akla, a afterwards Chief of Marketing, Coal India Limited, Calcutta, Director (Technical) and (Projects and Planning), CCL and currently Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL), Ranchi, Shri K.M. Singh, a afterwards G.M., Argada Area, CCL, Shri Sudarshan Singh, a afterwards Area Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL (presently Superintending Engineer (EM), N.K. Area, CCL, Shri Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn., Dhanbad and Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn., Dhanbad entered into a rapist swindling among themselves and in avail of a pronounced swindling a indicted open servants abused their sold central positions, in as many as that they helped a private organisation namely M/s. CTCC by proceed of illegally and unauthorisedly transferring conflicting grades of coal/slurry to a private organisation (CTCC) and also by proceed of intentionally and dishonestly suppressing germane contribution before a Hon’ble Courts and thereby helped M/s.CTCC in removing enlightened orders for recover of steam spark that was meant to be granted usually to a tangible users and not to a traders like M/s. CTCC. As a outcome of a aforesaid sincere acts of a indicted open servants as mentioned above, M/s. CTCC, illegally performed a supply of a Steam Coal during a cheaper rate germane to a tangible users, even after a relapse of a duration stipulated by a Hon’ble Supreme Court, causing prejudicial detriment to a balance of Rs.90,00,000/- approximately to a CCL.
It has been purported that Coal India Limited (CIL), Calcutta vide NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) antiquated 9/15-1-91 charity sale of existent batch of following categories of spark underneath “BULK SALE SCHEME” on as is where is basis.
(ii) Dirty Slurry
It was also stipulated vide intent no.23 of a terms and conditions of a NIT that in box of disaster on a partial of a customer to lift 90% of a apportion within 90 days of allocation, confidence deposition and a Bank Guarantee would be probable to be dispossessed by a Company.
In response to a aforesaid NIT, M/s. CTCC, charity to buy following quantity/quality of spark during a prescribed rate. M/s. CTCC was allotted a whole apportion w.e.f. 25.7.91 that was to be carried within 90 days after depositing a cost in advance.
Name of Product
by M/s. CTCC
Slurry Grade ‘D’
Rs.37756/- per MT
Dirty Slurry Grade ‘F’
Rs.238.50 per MT
Middlings Grade ‘F’
Rs.238.50 per MT
Rs. 178.00 per MT
It is serve purported that M/s. CTCC deposited a cost usually for 1500 MTs of Middlings Grade ‘F’ and 13276 MT of Slurry Grade ‘D’ conflicting a charity apportion as mentioned in a foregoing para. M/s. CTCC had carried this apportion of 1500 MT usually and was so to be penalised by proceed of damage of security/invoking of Bank Guarantee as per terms and conditions of a NIT. However, a endangered indicted open servants in pursuit to a rapist conspiracy, had shown favours to M/s. CTCC by not holding movement subsequently as above.
In avail of a conspiracy, M/s. CTCC requested a CIL in Apr 1993 to send a remaining apportion of 88500 MT of Middlings Grade ‘F’ to Dirty Slurry Grade ‘F’ and a same was authorized on 28.5.93 in finish defilement of terms and conditions of a NIT.
Accused Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC in suitability with Shri P.N. Tiwary, a afterwards Coal Controller, Calcutta and a indicted officials of a CCL/CIL submitted a painting to indicted Shri P.N. Tiwary requesting send of a left over apportion of 165724 MT of Slurry Grade ‘D’ to Dirty Slurry Grade ‘F’. Shri P.N. Tiwari, in his ability as Coal Controller, was ostensible to concede a send of category of spark after following due procedure, yet he, in finish defilement of a terms and condition of a NIT, authorized a same and intimated to a CMD, CCL, Ranchi, accordingly.
It is serve purported that a Coal India Limited, Calcutta floated another NIT underneath “LIBERALISED SALES SCHEME II (LSS-II)”, with same terms and conditions as of Bulk Sale Scheme, and M/s. CTCC charity to purchase, underneath this scheme, following quantities of spark from a collieries mentioned conflicting each.
Grade of Coal
Steam Coal Grade ‘B’
1.35 Lakhs MT
Steam Coal Washery Grade
1.75 Lakhs MT
It is serve purported that M/s. CTCC was allotted 32,000 MT of Steam Coal Grade ‘B’ from URIMARI Colliery and 5750 MT of Washery Grade ‘D’ Coal from Jarangdih Colliery vide minute antiquated 7.4.93 and 21.4.93 respectively of Coal India Limited, Calcutta. As conflicting a aforesaid allotted apportion M/s.CTCC deposited a volume equal usually to a value of 3000 MT any and carried a same from a sold sources.
In pursuit of rapist swindling M/s. CTCC serve requested a afterwards General Manager, Argada Area, CCL, Shri K.M. Singh, vide minute antiquated 7.4.94 to distribute Steam Coal from Sirka, Religara and Giddi ‘C’ Collieries (All high proceed collieries), in lieu of left over apportion of Slurry Grade ‘D’ (165724 MT), Middlings Grade ‘F’ (88500 MT) and Dirty Slurry Grade’F’ (45000 MT) of a prior scheme, i.e. Bulk Sale Scheme.
Steam Coal of a aforesaid 3 sources namely Sirka, Religara and Giddi ‘C’ was to be allotted, as per a routine of a CIL/CCL, exclusively to a industrial consumers (Actual users) and not to a traders like M/s. CTCC during all, during a germane period. Also, a rate of Steam Coal germane to a industrial Consumers (Actual users) was approximately Rs.200/- per MT reduction than a rate bound for a traders and M/s. CTCC being a traders, was not certified to get a Steam Coal during a rate that was germane to a industrial consumers (actual users).
Following a receipt of minute antiquated 7.4.94 of M/s. CTCC, indicted Shri K.M. Singh, a afterwards General Manager, Argada Area, CCL, in pursuit to a rapist swindling secretly intimated a Sales and Marketing Divisions of CCL, Ranchi, on 8.4.94 to a outcome that Argada Area was carrying a outrageous batch of Steam Coal and that he was prepared to supply a same to M/s. CTCC.
It is serve purported that indicted Shri K.M. Singh, a afterwards General Manager, Argada Area, CCL also was not efficient to perform such a matter as it was a courtesy of General Manager (Sales and Marketing), CCL, Ranchi.
Simultaneously, indicted Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC approached indicted P.N. Tiwary, a afterwards Coal Controller, as well, on a same issue, who in turn, in rapist swindling with M/s. CTCC and indicted open servants wrote a minute antiquated 12.4.94 to a CMD, CCL, Ranchi, inter alia, directing him to permit to a ask of M/s. CTCC, yet ascertaining from a CCL, Ranchi, a batch position and a past control of M/s. CTCC of not remitting a cost of whole charity apportion of spark in doubt conflicting both a aforesaid schemes namely ‘Bulk Sale’ and ‘LSS-II’ within a stipulated duration as prescribed and also a fact that M/s. CTCC was not certified to get a Steam Coal that was meant for Industrial Units (Actual Users).
Even before a aforesaid minute antiquated 12.4.94 of indicted P.N. Tiwary, was perceived in a bureau of a CMD, CCL, Ranchi, indicted Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC altered to a Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta by suppressing a germane contribution of a matter and cumulative an sequence antiquated 18.4.94 vide that CMD, CCL, Ranchi was destined to approve with a directions of a Coal Controller released vide minute antiquated 12.4.94. The indicted open servants of CIL/CCL also did not place a scold contribution before a Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in a matter.
It is serve purported that it was claim on a partial of indicted R.P. Shrivastava, a afterwards General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi, and Shri Akla, a afterwards Chief of Marketing, CIL, Calcutta to pledge a seductiveness of a association by proceed of entrance a Coal Controller to cgange his sequence released vide minute antiquated 12.4.94 according to a terms and conditions of a NITs in doubt and also to suggest to pierce a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court Calcutta for alteration of a sequence antiquated 18.4.94 on following points.
(i) M/s. CTCC did not do a terms and conditions of NITs in doubt and so a chastisement was to be imposed on them;
(ii) Steam Coal of a aforesaid collieries was not meant for traders like M/s. CTCC.
(iii) Traders, if allotted Steam Coal, were to compensate @ Rs.200/- approximately (per MT) some-more than a rate certified to a Industrial Consumers (Actual users).
However, they, in pursuit to a rapist conspiracy, simply endorsed severe a management of a Coal Controller for outset instruction vide minute antiquated 12.4.94, in a Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta given a Coal Controller was certified to emanate such letters, a Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta vide sequence antiquated 6.4.95 discharged a Revision Petition filed by a CIL with instruction to practice a sequence antiquated 12.4.94 of a Coal Controller.
M/s. CTCC, however, did not deposition a value of a Coal to be carried again, on some stratagem or a other as they were not in a position to sale such a outrageous apportion of spark during monopolistic price, those days, given a buyers were removing spark directly from a Coal India Limited and other sources. Also conjunction a indicted Shri B. Akla, a afterwards Chief of Marketing CIL nor Shri R.P. Shrivastava, a afterwards General Manager (Sales and Marketing), CCL, Ranchi asked M/s. CTCC to deposition a spark value and to lift a coal.
Two SLPs vide no. 2004 and 2005 of 1997 were, however, filed in a Hon’ble Supreme Court after a relapse of some-more than dual years by a CIL./CCL severe a sequence antiquated 6.4.95 of a Division Bench of a Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.
At this theatre also, a tangible contribution relating to a disaster on a partial of M/s. CTCC in lifting a spark after depositing a spark value in allege within a stipulated duration as per terms and conditions of a NITs, were not brought to a notice of a Hon’ble Supreme Court and simply a management of a Coal Controller was challenged.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after conference both a indicted parties, discharged both a SLPs on 18.3.97 with an courtesy that a Coal Controller had got a bureau to pass such orders.
On receipt of a orders of a Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was righteously commented on by an officer of Sales and Marketing Department of a CCL, Ranchi on 5.4.97 to a outcome that merely severe management of a Coal Controller had not served any purpose. He opined that all a germane points per disaster on a partial of M/s. CTCC should be carried by preferring an seductiveness conflicting a impugned order. Accused Shri B. Akla by that time had assimilated as Director (Projects and Planning) CCL, Ranchi and had perused a aforesaid observant on 5.4.97 itself, yet he had returned a record on 16.4.97 yet any criticism with an recommendation to plead a matter with a Panel Advocate of CCL/CIL.
On 22.4.98, a alteration petition was filed in a Hon’ble Supreme Court on seductiveness of CCL/CIL, mentioning therein a problems in implementing a orders antiquated 12.4.94 fo a Coal Controller, Calcutta. In this petition also, there was no discuss about a contribution that M/s. CTCC had not deposited a value of a whole apportion of spark and had not carried a same within a stipulated period. The fact that Steam Coal of a collieries in doubt was meant specifically for a industrial units/Actual users and if sole to a traders was to be costlier by Rs.200/- per MT approximately was also not mentioned in a pronounced alteration petition.
M/s. CTCC also filed a disregard petition parallel in a Hon’ble Supreme Court conflicting a afterwards CMD, CCL, Ranchi and others in a matter. Hearing of both a petitions was bound on 9.5.97 and a Hon’ble Supreme Court released a uncover means notice to a endangered officers of CCL. Hearing on a alteration petition as mentioned above could not be taken up.
As per a joining of a CCL, a Hon’ble Supreme Court vide a sequence antiquated 14.7.97, destined a CCL to finish a supply of a whole apportion of spark allotted to M/s. CTCC within 20 months definitely during a rate of 10,000 MT per month and during a mutated cost bound by a CIL w.e.f. 1.4.97.
On receipt of a aforesaid order, a Dealing Officer of a Sales and Marketing Division of CCL, Ranchi, instituted a offer suggesting that chastisement as per terms and conditions of NIT of “Bulk Sale” and “LSS-II” Schemes should be motionless in box M/s. CTCC to forewarn lorry correct subsidy on a weekly basis, to safeguard timely chain of trucks by a celebration and to say a record to cruise a apportion carried by them within a sold duration of time.
It was also decided/recommended during a assembly reason jointly by a Director (Finance), CCL, Ranchi, C.G.M., Argada Area, CCL, Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL, CGM (Sales and Marketing Division), CCL, Ranchi etc. to levy a chastisement on M/s. CTCC in box unsuccessful to lift 10,000 MT of spark per month as per a orders of a Hon’ble Supreme Court. When this note, duly endorsed by a Committee was put adult to a indicted Shri B. Akla, a afterwards executive (Technical) and (Projects and Planning), CCL, Ranchi, he celebrated in foster of a celebration to a outcome that a celebration shall have to be finished to abstain a unlifted apportion after “the stipulated period, and it will in itself, be sufficient and recovery/penalising for unlifted apportion might not be required”.
This courtesy of indicted Shri B. Akla, that was not in suitability with a recommendation of General Manager (Sales) and a Committee members, including a Director (Finance) shows that he was compelling a interests of M/s. CTCC rather than that of CCL, Ranchi.
Thereafter, on 20.9.97, a assembly was reason that was attended to by Shri B. Akla, Director (Technical) and (PP), Shri A.K. Mitra, Director (Finance), R.R. Menon, G.M.(Sales and Marketing), CCL and Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC and it was jointly concluded on that M/s. CTCC would contention a Bank Guarantee during a rate of Rs.30/- per MT for a unlifted apportion of coal, that could not be carried due to a disaster on a partial of M/s. CTCC and to concede twenty months time for lifting a whole apportion as per a instruction of a Hon’ble Supreme Court. This duration was to be distributed from a tangible date of derivation of lifting or 1st November, 1997, whichever was earlier. It was also specified that M/s. CTCC would compensate @ Rs.896/- per MT for a Steam Coal Grade ‘B’ during a told rate w.e.f. 1.4.97.
As per a aforesaid preference M/s. CTCC was to lift a whole apportion of spark by Jun 1999, yet conflicting 2.8 lakh MT of Steam Coal, M/s. CTCC carried usually about 30000 MT of spark from a aforesaid 3 collieries upto Jun 1999 and so a remaininig apportion of 2.5 lakhs MT of spark was not to be certified to be carried by M/s. CTCC. However, in defilement of a Supreme Court’s sequence M/s. CTCC was certified by Shri R.P. Shrivastava, a afterwards General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi to lift another 15000 MT of Steam Coal between Jun 1999 to Oct 1999. As per a instruction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, a lifting of Coal was to embark from Nov 1997 yet it was behind by M/s. CTCC in connivance with a officers of CCL, on one stratagem or a other upto Mar 1998, compartment a rise deteriorate started. This was apparently with a perspective to equivocate a gaunt season.
It is also purported that Shri Sudarshan Singh a afterwards Area Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL, was finished a nodal officer thankful for controlling reserve of spark to M/s. CTCC and a settlement yet he intentionally did not make any settlement and did not belong to a norms of NIT/direction of a Hon’ble Supreme Cort. Shri Sudarshan Singh also went to a border of outset a letter/certificate favoring a celebration mentioning therein that due to a non-availability of Coal in a Area, a reserve could not be finished to M/s. CTCC. This was finished with a perspective to assisting a celebration in a matter of lifting spark even after a expiry of a stipulated duration of 20 months.
After a expiry of 20 months, indicted Shri S.K. Shrivastava a afterwards General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi and Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC entered into an uncalled-for agreement (MOU) on 23.3.2000, vide that M./s. CTCC would be certified to lift spark according to a possess will as no time support was bound for lifting a same. M/s. CTCC was also given a probability for lifting spark from Bokaro, Barkakana, Sayal and Dhuri Area, in serve to a aforesaid areas was in high proceed and was attractive a top premium. In a MOU, no sustenance was kept for commanding any chastisement for disaster on a partial of M/s. CTCC in lifting of Coal. This was finished with a perspective of concede M/s. CTCC to lift spark during reward months.
The rate during that M/s. CTCC certified to lift a spark was germane to a industrial consumers/actual users and not to a traders like M/s. CTCC. The rate germane to a merchant was Rs.200/- (approximately per MT) more.
After a expiry of stipulated duration of 20 months, M/s. CTCC was certified by a indicted open servants of CCL to lift additional apportion of 45000 MT of steam coal, during a rate germane to a tangible users and thereby CCL Ranchi was put to a prejudicial detriment to a balance of Rs.90 lakhs (Rs. Ninty Lakhs) approximately.
The aforesaid acts of commissions and omissions on a partial of S/Shri P.N. Tiwary, a afterwards Coal Controller, Calcutta (retired), R.P. Shrivastava, a afterwards General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi (retd.), S.K. Srivastava, G.M. (Sales) CCL, Ranchi, B. Akla, CMD, CCL, Ranchi, K.M. Singh, a afterwards G.M. Argada Area, CCL, Sudarshan Singh, a afterwards Area Sales Officer, Argada Area, currently superintending user (EM), NK Area, CCL, Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corporation (CTCC) Dhanbad (Pvt.) exhibit that a open servants and a private persons alongwith their firm, as mentioned above, entered into a rapist swindling and in pursuit of a same disregarded a terms and conditions of a NITs released in honour of sale of spark underneath “Bulk Sale” and “LSS-II” Schemes, designedly suppressed germane contribution before a Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and subsequently in defilement of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s sequence certified a private celebration namely M/s. CTCC to lift an additional apportion of 45000 MT of spark during a rate germane to a industrial consumers/actual users and thereby caused outrageous prejudicial detriment to a balance of Rs.90 lakhs approximately to a CCL, Ranchi and analogous prejudicial advantage to a private celebration and themselves. Shri P.N. Tiwary, a afterwards Coal Controller, Calcutta also connived with a private celebration and indicted open servants by fraudulently and dishonestly outset directions to a CMD, CCL, Ranchi in foster of a private party.
This prima facie divulge a elect of offences u/s. 120(B) r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
This R.C. is therefore purebred and hearing is taken up.
Dy. Supt. Of Police,
(6.) According to a FIR, a several acts and omissions narrated therein of a indicted caused a outrageous prejudicial detriment of approximately rupees ninety lakhs to a CCL and a analogous prejudicial advantage to a private company.
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on chatter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress FOR 100s of high probity and autarchic probity cases
(7.) This box has a prolonged and checkered history. It all started with dual advertisements released by CIL in January, 1991 and September, 1991 published in a ‘Statesman’ journal mouth-watering offers for squeeze of several grades of spark underneath dual schemes propounded by it named as ‘Bulk Sale Scheme’ and ‘Liberalised Sale Scheme-II’. [It is hapless that copies of a above advertisements are not placed on record]
8. What transpired subsequently is described in fact by this Court in visualisation antiquated 18th March, 1997 in Civil Appeal Nos.2004-2005/1997 reported in (1997) 9 SCC 258. Both Coal India Ltd. and a private association were parties to a above-mentioned appeals. In paras 5 to 7, this Court accessible as follows:
“5. In Civil Appeal outset out of Special Leave Petition No. 25983 of 1995 we are endangered with a sale of spark underneath a Liberalised Sales Scheme-II (for brief ‘LSS-II) framed by CIL in Aug 1992 in pursuit of Notifications antiquated Jul 24, 1967 and Jun 4, 1992. In Sep 1992 CIL published an announcement in a ‘Statesmen’ mouth-watering offers for squeeze in honour of spark charity for sale underneath LSS-II. In a pronounced announcement a apportion and peculiarity of spark that was being charity in a several collieries belonging to a subsidiaries of CIL were specified.
Among a collieries mentioned in a announcement were Urimari and Jarangdih collieries of CCL. In honour of Urimari Colliery 1.35 lac tonnes of Grade-B Steam Coal was charity and in honour of Jarangdih Colliery 1.75 lac tonnes of Grade W-III Steam Coal was offered. In response to a pronounced announcement M/s. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation, respondent No. 1 in both a appeals (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners’), sent a minute antiquated Sep 16, 1992 to a General Manager (Sales), CCL, charity to squeeze 1.35 lac tonnes of Grade-B Steam Coal from Urimari Colliery and 1.75 lac tonnes of Grade W-III Steam Coal from Jarangdih Colliery. By subsidy minute antiquated Apr 7, 1993, CCL allotted to a petitioners 32,400 MT Grade-B Steam Coal from Urimari Colliery in Sayal area in response to a offer finished by a petitioners on Sep 16, 1992. By another subsidy minute antiquated Apr 20/21, 1993, CCL allotted to a petitioners 50,750 MT Grade W-III Steam Coal from Jarangdih Colliery. The outcome of a pronounced allotments was adult to Mar 31, 1994, yet a duration of a pronounced allotments was extended. The box of a petitioners is that Steam Coal during Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries was not relating to a announced Grade-B and W-III respectively and was of revoke grades. Sirka Colliery descending in Argada area also belongs to CCL. The petitioners, carrying come to know that sufficient bonds of Grade-B Steam Coal was accessible for ordering during Sirka Colliery, wrote a minute antiquated Apr 7, 1994 to a General Manager (Argada area) of CCL, wherein it was mentioned that 32,400 MT of Grade-B Steam Coal from Urimari Colliery and 50,750 MT of Grade W- III Steam Coal from Jarangdih Colliery was allotted to them vide subsidy letters antiquated Apr 7, 1993 and Apr 20/21, 1993 respectively and that on comment of non-availability of Grade-B Steam Coal during Urimari Colliery and Grade W-III category steam spark during Jarangdih Colliery it would not be probable for them to lift a compulsory apportion of coal. In a pronounced minute it was also staid that a petitioners had learnt that Sirka Colliery had outrageous bonds of Grade-B Steam Coal to a balance of 4.16 lakh MT and that he (General Manger) was peaceful to accept a diversion of orders of other areas requisitioned underneath LSS-II to a balance of 2.00 lakhs MT in serve to other tentative commitments and orders/proposed deliveries to others including a petitioners. By a pronounced minute a petitioners voiced their eagerness to accept homogeneous quantities of Grade-B Steam Coal from Sirka Colliery in box a General Manager was peaceful to accept a send of subsidy for Steam Coal of Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries. The General Manager was requested to accept a offer of a petitioners during his turn and insinuate to a General Manager (Sales)/CCL Headquarters for receiving a grave capitulation in this regard. After receiving a pronounced minute a General Manager (A), Sirka, sent a communication antiquated Apr 8, 1994 to a General Manager (SM), CCL, wherein he enclosed a duplicate of a aforementioned minute of a petitioners antiquated Apr 7, 1994 and, after referring to his wireless summary antiquated Apr 1, 1994, hestated that in perspective of a batch position of 4.16 lakhs MT of spark during Sirka Colliery it has been arguable that in sequence to repay bonds such orders of steam coal, if diverted from other areas, could be accepted. On Apr 9, 1994 a petitioners submitted a painting to a Coal Controller for send of allotments of steam spark from Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries allotted by CCL/Headquarters underneath LSS-II from these collieries to Sirka Colliery of Argada area. In a pronounced painting a petitioners mentioned that peculiarity of spark being constructed during Urimari Colliery was homogeneous to Grade-D spark and during Jarangdih Colliery also a peculiarity of spark being constructed was homogeneous to Grade W-IV. It was staid that during Sirka Colliery of Argada area there were outrageous bonds of Grade-B Steam Coal to a balance of 4.10 lakhs MT and it was forked out that a General Manager (Argada area) of CCL, in his minute antiquated Apr 8, 1994, had endorsed a ask of a petitioners for diversion of allotments to Sirka Colliery for enlightened care and capitulation of a General Manager (Sales)/CCL. A duplicate of a pronounced minute of a General Manager, Argada Area, Sirka antiquated Apr 8, 1994 was also submitted along with a representation. By a pronounced painting a petitioners requested a Coal Controller to emanate a instruction to a spark association for send of allotments of Steam Coal from Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries to Sirka Colliery for recover of homogeneous apportion of Steam Coal from Sirka Colliery. On a pronounced painting a Coal Controller, on Apr 12, 1994, sent a communication to a Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Ranchi referring to a minute antiquated Apr 7, 1994 submitted by a petitioners to a General Manager, Argada area as good as a minute antiquated Apr 8, 1994 from a General Manager, Argada addressed to a General Manager (Sales)/CCL wherein he had endorsed for acceptance of a send in sequence to repay outrageous bonds of spark during Sirka Colliery. In a pronounced minute a Coal Controller has staid :
Having remarkable a whole resources and contribution of a box and a accessibility of steam spark during Sirka we are suggested to forthwith give outcome to a send of these allotments of steam spark from Urimari/Jarangdih collieries to Sirka Colliery for smoothness of homogeneous apportion of steam spark Grade B to a celebration as requested for by them and endorsed by a endangered area, during a earliest.
(6.) Civil Appeal outset out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26366 of 1995 relates to sale of washery products on a basement of a Notification antiquated Jul 24, 1967, before amendment introduced therein by Notification antiquated Jun 4, 1992. On Jan 17, 1991 and announcement was published in a ‘Statesman’ mouth-watering offers for bulk squeeze of rejects, Middlings, Slurry and Dirty Slurry in several washeries of CCL including a Gidi Washery. In response to a pronounced advertisement, a petitioners, on Mar 2, 1991, submitted offers for squeeze of 1,79,000 MT Slurry, 90,000 MT Middlings and 90,000 MT Dirty Slurry. By letters antiquated May 11/14, 1991 CIL supposed a offer of a petitioners and concluded to supply to a petitioners 1,79,000 MT Slurry Grade-D, 90,000 MT Middlings Grade-F and 45,000 MT Dirty Slurry Grade-F from Gidi Washery. Subsequently by minute antiquated May 28, 1992 CCL authorized a send of 88,500 MT of Grade-F Middlings allotted to a petitioners to homogeneous apportion of Grade-F Dirty Slurry to be delivered from Gidi Washery. By minute antiquated Sep 18, 1993, a General Manager (Argada area) of CCL refused to permit to a ask of a petitioners to concede smoothness of Grade-D also with Grade-F Dirty Slurry and reiterated that in sequence to equivocate probable malpractices of lifting of Slurry conflicting orders of Dirty Slurry, lifting of both a products parallel was not possible. On Sep 20, 1993, a petitioners submitted a painting to a Coal Controller requesting him to proceed CCL to send their subsidy of 1,65,724 MT of Slurry Grade-D to homogeneous apportion of Dirty slurry Grade-F that was extravagantly accessible during a Gidi Washery. On Jan 31, 1994 a Coal Controller gave a instruction to a Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Ranchi, to send 1,65,724 MT of Grade-D Slurry to homogeneous apportion of Grade-F Slurry in Gidi Washery. Since a instruction of a Coal Controller was not implemented by CCL, a petitioners altered a Calcutta High Court by filing a Writ Petition and a High Court, by sequence antiquated Feb 10, 1994, destined a appellants to act in terms of Coal Controller’s minute antiquated Jan 31, 1994. Thereupon by minute antiquated Feb 28, 1994, CCL arguable a send of 1,65,724 MT of Grade-D Slurry to Grade-F Slurry of Gidi Washery. The box of a petitioners is that with outcome from Apr 1, 1994, CCL altered a category of Dirty Slurry of Gidi Washery from Grade-F to Grade-E for a year 1994-95 and increasing a cost by about Rs. 85 per MT. The petitioners submitted a painting to a Coal Controller on Apr 2, 1994 in that regard. On Apr 7, 1994, a petitioners wrote a minute to a General Manager (Argada area) of CCL, wherein they staid that in perspective of a problems mentioned in a pronounced letter, it would not be probable for them to lift a Dirty Slurry allotted to them from Gidi Washery and they sought send of their allotments of Dirty Slurry to Steam Coal from Sirka/Gidi-C/Religara collieries. By his minute antiquated Apr 8, 1994 addressed to a General Manager (SM), CCL, a General Manager (Argada area), forwarded a pronounced minute of a petitioners for enlightened consideration. On Apr 9, 1994 a petitioners submitted a painting to a Coal Controller requesting him to send of then-allotted apportion of Dirty Slurry remaining to be requisitioned and carried conflicting subsidy and a whole apportion of new subsidy of 1,65,724 MT of Dirty Slurry for recover of homogeneous apportion of Steam Coal by highway from Sirka/Gidi-C/Religara collieries. The Coal Controller, sent a communication antiquated Apr 12, 1994 to a Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, wherein, after holding note of ntation antiquated Apr 7, 1994 submitted by a petitioners to a General Manager (Argada area) and a minute from a General Manager, Argada area to a General Manager (Sales)/CCL antiquated Apr 8, 1994, he staid :
Having remarkable a whole resources and contribution and a accessibility of a spark during Sirka/Religara/Gidi-C preferred to be carried by a party, we are suggested to forthwith outcome to a send of allotments of Dirty Slurry and in a celebration minute antiquated 2.4.94 and 9.4.94 for recover of homogeneous apportion of steam spark from Sirka/Religara/Gidi-C collieries as requested for by them and endorsed by a endangered area, during a earliest.
(7). Since a directions contained in both a communications of a Coal Controller antiquated Apr 12, 1994 addressed to a Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCL were not being implemented by CCL, a petitioners on Apr 18, 1994, filed dual Writ Petitions (Matters Nos. 940-941 of 1994) in a Calcutta High Court. Both a Writ Petitions were likely of by a schooled singular Judge (Mitra J.) by sequence antiquated Apr 18, 1994 whereby a Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCL was destined to act in terms of a communications antiquated Apr 12, 1994 sent by a Coal Controller within a fortnight from a date. This sequence was inspected by a schooled singular Judge yet outset notice to a appellants and by directing that a duplicate of a Writ Petition be served on Mrs. A. Quraishi, Advocate as she generally appears on seductiveness of a Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCL and a Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCL ‘was destined to regularise her appointment in a matter. The pronounced sequence of a schooled singular Judge was, however, set aside in seductiveness by a Division Bench of a High Court by sequence Jun 6, 1994 and a matter was remitted for reconsideration on merits. Thereafter, a matter was warn by Samaresh Banerjee J. who, after outset notice to a parties, by his visualisation antiquated Apr 6, 1995, certified both a Writ Petitions filed by a petitioners and destined a appellants herein, who were respondents in a Writ Petitions, to practice a orders of a Coal Controller antiquated Apr 12, 1994 forthwith. Letters Patent Appeals filed by a appellants conflicting a pronounced visualisation of a schooled singular Judge have been discharged by a Division Bench of a High Court (K.C. Agarwal CJ. and Tarun Chatterjee J.) by a impugned visualisation antiquated Oct 31, 1995. Hence these appeals. “
It can be seen from a above-extract that a private association entered into dual contracts with CIL pursuant to dual Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs). Subsequently, a private association sought movement of a bizarre terms of a contracts in so distant as they describe to a peculiarity of spark and also a collieries from that a spark could be secured. The same was destined to be given by a Coal Controller (one of a accused) by his communications antiquated 12.04.1994. Complaining that a CIL and a officers were not for a directions given by a Coal Controller, a private association approached a Calcutta High Court by filing dual command petitions, i.e. W.P. Nos. 940 and 941 of 1994. The brief story of a pronounced command petitions is taken note of by this Court in para 7 of a visualisation antiquated 18th March, 1997, extracted above. Eventually, both a command petitions were certified by a visualisation of a Calcutta High Court antiquated 6th April, 1995 and a same was arguable by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals by a visualisation antiquated 31st October, 1995. Aggrieved by a same, CIL approached this Court by a above-mentioned Civil Appeal Nos. 2004-2005 of 1997. Both a appeals were dismissed.
(9.) The matter did not finish there. Complaining that a Coal India Ltd. and a officers unsuccessful to approve with a visualisation of this Court antiquated 18th March, 1997 in a above-mentioned Civil Appeal Nos. 2004-2005 of 1997, a private association filed disregard petitions Nos. 261-262 of 1997. The pronounced disregard petitions were likely of by an sequence antiquated 14th July, 1997 by this Court. The user apportionment of a pronounced sequence is as follows:-
“We, however, find that in a disregard petitions a request of a field is that they might be granted spark during a told cost bound by a Coal India Ltd. and finished effective for sale of spark with outcome from Apr 1, 1997. Having courtesy to a pronounced request finished by a field themselves in a disregard petitions, we cruise it usually and suitable in a seductiveness of probity to proceed that a reserve of a spark that are to be finished by a respondents as per a directions of a Coal Controller during a duration of subsequent 20 months shall be finished during Rs.896/- per metric tonne, a told cost bound by a Coal India Ltd. with outcome from Apr 1, 1977. It is finished transparent that a respondents are not limited to supply spark during a rate of 10000 metric tonne per month and that if there is accessibility of incomparable apportion of spark a respondents can supply apportion in additional of 10000 metric tonne per month so as to revoke a duration of 20 months for a supply yet in no eventuality a pronounced duration shall be extended. Since a reserve are to be finished during a rate of 10000 metric tonne per month, it will be slight for a field to concede rotating bank pledge for 10000 metric tonne of spark per month. It is also finished transparent that a cost during that a supply of spark is to be finished as destined above, shall be for a whole apportion of spark to be granted by a respondents and there shall be no movement in a pronounced price. The disregard petitions as good as a interlocutory applications Nos.5-6 are likely of accordingly.”
(10.) Subsequently, it appears that CIL did, in fact, supply spark to a private association allegedly not usually in correspondence with a directions of this Court in a sequence antiquated 14th Mar yet also in additional of a authorised obligations imposed by a orders of this Court.
11. It is in a above-mentioned background, a FIR, that is a theme matter of a brawl in a present appeal, came to be purebred on 15th Nov 2000.
12. The crux of a FIR is that yet a reserve by a Coal India Ltd. are pursuant to a directions released by a Calcutta High Court arguable and reinforced by a visualisation antiquated 18.3.97 andorder antiquated 14.7.97 of this Court referred to above, such directions from a courts are consequences of a disaster on a partial of a several indicted (mentioned in a FIR) to move a germane and essential contribution that in law disentitle a private association from removing any service possibly from this Court or from a Calcutta High Court. According to a FIR, a private association unsuccessful to approve with a twin obligations outset underneath a dual contracts referred to earlier, i.e. lifting of a spark engaged to be purchased by it in suitability with a report concluded on and creation a remuneration of income towards a sale cost of a spark in terms of a report of a remuneration concluded upon. The piece of a FIR is that a disaster to move a above mentioned essential contribution to a notice of a Courts (both a Calcutta High Court and this Court), is warn and due to a swindling between all a indicted of that a respondent is one.
13. By a visualisation underneath appeal, a pronounced FIR was quashed. The usually reason given is that a supply of spark to a private association had been finished in terms of a preference given by a Calcutta High Court as authorized by this Court during a cost bound by this Court. Therefore, no Magistrate can inspect a claim that such a supply of spark resulted in an unfair financial advantage to a private company. The user apportionment of a visualisation reads as under:
“It was contended that a intent of a First Information Report and a hearing thereon was to unearth rapist bungle conducted by a indicted open servants to obtain for CTCC prejudicial financial advantage by hurtful or bootleg means or by abusing their position as open servants or while holding bureau as open servants and accordingly offences pronounced to have been committed includes those mentioned in Section 13(2) hearing with Section 13(1)(d) of a Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The purported prejudicial financial advantage is receiving of supply of spark during a reduction price. As aforesaid supply of spark had been performed in terms of a preference given by this Court and authorized by a Supreme Court and during a cost bound by a Supreme Corut, no magistrate, therefore, in a resources can confirm that any unfair financial advantage was finished accessible to CTCC by any of a indicted open servants.
For a reasons aforesaid we stifle a First Information Report impugned in this command petition, all investigations finished pursuant to a pronounced First Information Report and curb Central Bureau of Investigation from carrying on any serve hearing on a basement of a pronounced First Information Report.”
14. Hence, this appeal.
15. Learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri P.P. Malhotra, appearing for a appellant really vehemently submitted that: a usually emanate warn and motionless by a Calcutta High Court and arguable by this Court was possibly a Coal Controller had a compulsory authorised management to proceed (by his dual letters antiquated 12.4.1994) a movement of a terms of a dual contracts entered into by a private association and this Court did find that a Coal Controller had a claim authorised management to proceed such variation. The small existence of management in a Coal Controller to sequence movement in a terms of a contracts does not by itself meant that a management had been exercised legally and validly. The Coal Controller unsuccessful to take note of a fact that a private association had already committed a crack of a contractual obligations to CIL. Having courtesy to a crack of a agreement committed by a private company, a Coal Controller should not have exercised his management in foster of such a delinquent purchaser. In other words, a Coal Controller did not take all a germane factors before sportive his management to extend movement in a terms of a contracts between a private association and a Coal India Ltd. Shri Malhotra serve submitted that even in a authorised record before a Calcutta High Court and this Court, these factors were not brought to a notice of a Courts by any one of a accused. It is argued that if usually a fact that a private association had already defaulted in a obligations outset out of a dual contracts entered into by it with a CIL had been brought to a notice of a Courts, Courts would not have intervened in foster of a private company. The gravamen of a assign in a FIR in emanate is that a disaster to move such essential facts, that were many essential for adjudicating a rights and obligations of a private association and CIL, to a notice of a Courts is a outcome of a rapist swindling by all a indicted to capacitate a private association to get an unfair and bootleg advantage during a cost of CIL. Shri Malhotra, therefore, submitted that a visualisation underneath seductiveness clearly unsuccessful to cruise this aspect and, therefore, unsustainable in law.
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on chatter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress FOR 100s of high probity and autarchic probity cases
(16.) On a other hand, Shri Gopal Subramanium, schooled comparison warn appearing for a respondent submitted that a visualisation underneath seductiveness does not call for any division as a end arrived during by a visualisation underneath seductiveness is a judicious inference to a progressing visualisation in Civil Appeal Nos. 2004-2005 of 1997 and sequence in Contempt Petitions Nos. 261-262 of 1997 of this Court.
(17.) From a effort of a impugned FIR, we know a assign conflicting a indicted to be as follows:
(a) The private association committed crack of contractual obligations outset underneath a dual contracts entered into by it with CIL.
(b) The officers of a CIL and CCL(shown indicted in a FIR) are thankful in law (as per a terms of a contract) to take penal movement conflicting a private association for such crack of a contractual obligations.
(c) The above-mentioned officers/accused unsuccessful to take any such penal action.
(d) On a other hand, when a private association approached a courts seeking a coercion of a directions of Coal Controller, all a indicted deliberately suppressed a fact that private association had committed a crack of a contractual obligations, thereby enabling a private association to obtain enlightened order.
(e) The termination of a essential fact that a private association committed crack of a contractual obligations was warn and conscious on a partial of all a accused.
(f) Such termination is a outcome of a rapist swindling between all a indicted to capacitate a private association to secure an bootleg financial advantage by utilizing a authorised process.
18. We have meticulously examined a visualisation of this Court antiquated 18.3.1997. The whole debate in a pronounced visualisation revolved usually around a management of a Coal Controller to emanate a several directions such as were given by him on 12.04.1994. On an conference of a germane reserve of law, this Court no doubt reason that a Coal Controller was legally efficient to emanate a pronounced directions. That a private association had already committed crack of contractual obligations outset underneath a dual contracts was not during issue. There is no contention in that courtesy in a pronounced judgment.
19. Whether a private association unsuccessful to approve with a authorised obligations outset out of a contracts entered into by it with a Coal India or a subsidiaries, depends on a explanation of a contribution allegedly forming a acts or omissions amounting to a crack of a contracts on a partial of a private company. To arrive during any end on a above question, it requires a minute conference of a germane material. The fact that a reserve of spark were finished to a private association pursuant to a orders of a Calcutta High Court and arguable by this Court by itself does not sequence out a probability of a crime carrying been committed. It is good famous that decisions are rendered by courts on a basement of a contribution pleaded before them and a issues outset out of those pleaded facts. As we have already forked out, a usually emanate projected on a basement of a contribution placed before Calcutta High Court and this Court is a cunning of a Coal Controller to give directions that in piece amounted to movement of a terms of a contracts to that a private association and Coal India Ltd. are parties. This probity in Civil Appeal Nos.2004-2005 of 1997 announced that a Coal Controller had a claim authorised management to give such directions yet did not inspect any other issue.
20. The accurate terms and conditions theme to that a CIL supposed a offer of private association are not accessible on record in a present case. But it appears from a FIR (which is a theme matter of dispute) that a private association is compulsory to lift a whole apportion of spark it concluded to squeeze within a duration of 90 days from a date of allotment. It also appears from a FIR, that a private association is thankful to make a payments of a cost in a specified demeanour and report and also make a confidence deposit, a accurate inlet of that is not mentioned possibly in FIR or in a petition or in a visualisation underneath appeal. We are, therefore, to make a conjuncture that deposition of income is some kind of a pledge for a opening of a agreement on a partial of a private company.
21. Coming to a visualisation underneath appeal, as it is already beheld that a High Court quashed a FIR usually on a belligerent that a supply of spark had been performed in terms of a preference given by a Calcutta High Court and authorized by this Court and for a pronounced reason no probity can, therefore, confirm possibly any unfair financial advantage was finished accessible to a private company. For entrance to such a conclusion, a schooled Judge finished an ‘elaborate examination’ of a Indian authorised system. But, in a opinion, a whole enquiry proceeded on a wrong drift that no examination, as to how a visualisation of a higher Court came into existence, is slight in a complement of law that we follow.
22. This Court on some-more than one arise reason that rascal vitiates all including authorised acts. In S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court celebrated as follows in para 1:-
1. “Fraud-avoids all authorised acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” celebrated Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about 3 centuries ago. It is a staid tender of law that a visualisation or direct performed by personification rascal on a probity is a zip and honest in a eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree – by a initial probity or by a top probity – has to be treated as a zip by each court, possibly higher or inferior. It can be challenged in any probity even in material proceedings.”
23. Again in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1546, this Court reviewed a law on this position and reiterated a principle. In paras 38 and 39 it was reason as follows:
38. The matter can be looked during from a conflicting angle as well. Suppose, a box is motionless by a efficient Court of Law after conference a parties and an sequence is inspected in foster of a applicant/plaintiff that is inspected by all a courts including a final Court. Let us also consider of a box where this Court does not boot Special Leave Petition yet after extenuation leave decides a seductiveness finally by recording reasons. Such sequence can truly be pronounced to be a visualisation to that Article 141 of a Constitution applies. Likewise, a doctrine of partnership also gets attracted. All orders inspected by a courts/authorities below, therefore, combine in a visualisation of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any celebration to a visualisation to proceed any probity or management to review, remember or recur a order.
39. The above principle, however, is theme to difference of fraud. Once it is determined that a sequence was performed by a successful celebration by practising or personification fraud, it is vitiated. Such sequence can't be reason legal, current or in accord with law. It is self-existent and non est and can't be certified to stand. This is a elemental element of law and needs no serve elaboration. Therefore, it has been pronounced that a judgment, direct or sequence performed by rascal has to be treated as nullity, possibly by a probity of initial instance or by a final court. And it has to be treated as nonest by each Court, higher or inferior.
If a visualisation performed by personification rascal on a Court is a zip and is to be treated as non est by each Court higher or inferior, it would be bizarre proof to hear that an enquiry into a doubt possibly a visualisation was cumulative by personification rascal on a Court by not disclosing a compulsory contribution germane for a adjudication of a debate before a Court is impermissible. From a above judgments, it is transparent that such an conference is permissible. Such a element is compulsory to be practical with incomparable importance in a area of open law bureau as a outcome ensuing from such rascal has incomparable dimension inspiring a incomparable open interest.
Therefore, a end reached by a visualisation underneath seductiveness that no Court can inspect a exactness of a essence of a impugned FIR, is unsustainable and yet any basement in law. The really censure in a FIR is that a visualisation of a Calcutta High Court, as endorsed by this Court, is a outcome of a warn and prejudiced termination of a germane contribution compulsory for adjudicating a rights and obligations of a parties to a pronounced litigation
24. Coming to a doubt as to what amounts for securing a visualisation by personification rascal in a Court- In Chengal Varaya Naidu (supra), this Court definitely reason that a non-disclosure of all a compulsory contribution tantamounts to personification rascal on a Courts. At para 6 of a pronounced judgment, it was reason as follows:
“…………..If he withholds a critical request in sequence to advantage advantage on a other side afterwards he would he guilty of personification rascal on a probity as good as on a conflicting party.”
25. The claim in a FIR is that a several indicted deliberately withheld/suppressed a fact that a private company, by a time it approached a Calcutta High Court in command petition Nos.940 and 941 of 1994, had already committed crack of a obligations outset of a contracts from out of that a whole lawsuit arose. A fact that is severely germane in determining a desert of a private association to find several reliefs such as a ones sought by it before a Calcutta High Court. It is serve specific claim in a FIR such a non-disclosure/suppression of a essential fact was determined and warn pursuant to a swindling between all a indicted to secure an bootleg and prejudicial financial advantage to a private company. Therefore, in a opinion a Judgment underneath seductiveness can't be sustained.
26. Coming to a doubt of a range of a bureau to stifle an FIR, possibly in a practice of orthodox bureau underneath Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or underneath Article 226 of a Constitution of India, a law is good staid and this Court in a catena of decisions laid down transparent beliefs and indicated parameters that clear a quashing of an FIR. We do not introduce to catalog all a cases where a emanate was examined yet notice usually dual of them and infer a unchanging beliefs laid down by this Court in this regard.
27. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court during para 6 held:
“……………..It is timeless that a fundamental bureau of a High Court can be exercised to stifle record in a correct box possibly to forestall a abuse of a routine of any probity or differently to secure a ends of justice. Ordinarily rapist record instituted conflicting an indicted chairman contingency be attempted underneath a reserve of a Code, and a High Court would be demure to meddle with a pronounced record during an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, fascinating or judicious to lay down any resistant sequence that would oversee a practice of this fundamental jurisdiction. However, we might infer some categories of cases where a fundamental bureau can and should be exercised for quashing a proceedings. There might be cases where it might be probable for a High Court to take a perspective that a establishment or continuation of rapist record conflicting an indicted chairman might volume to a abuse of a routine of a probity or that a quashing of a impugned record would secure a ends of justice. If a rapist move in doubt is in honour of an corruption purported to have been committed by an indicted chairman and it manifestly appears that there is a authorised bar conflicting a establishment or continuation of a pronounced move a High Court would be fit in quashing a move on that ground. Absence of a claim permit may, for instance, concede cases underneath this category. Cases might also arise where a allegations in a First Information Report or a complaint, even if they are taken during their face value and supposed in their entirety, do not consecrate a corruption alleged; in such cases no doubt of appreciating justification arises; it is a matter merely of looking during a censure or a First Information Report to confirm possibly a corruption purported is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for a High Court to reason that it would be manifestly unfair to concede a routine of a rapist probity to be released conflicting a indicted person. A third difficulty of cases in that a fundamental bureau of a High Court can be successfully invoked might also arise. In cases descending underneath this difficulty a allegations finished conflicting a indicted chairman do consecrate an corruption purported yet there is possibly no authorised justification adduced in support of a box or justification adduced clearly or manifestly fails to infer a charge. In traffic with this category of cases it is critical to bear in mind a eminence between a box where there is no authorised justification or where there is justification that is manifestly and clearly unsuitable with a indictment finished and cases where there is authorised justification that on a appreciation might or might not support a indictment in question. In sportive a bureau underneath s. 561-A a High Court would not embark on an enquiry as to possibly a justification in doubt is arguable or not. That is a duty of a hearing magistrate, and usually it would not be open to any celebration to plead a High Court’s fundamental bureau and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of a justification a indictment finished conflicting a indicted would not be sustained. Broadly staid that is a inlet and range of a fundamental bureau of a High Court underneath s. 561-A in a matter of quashing rapist proceedings, extracted and reproduced above, we give a following categories of cases by proceed of painting wherein such energy could be exercised possibly to forestall abuse of a routine of any Court or differently to secure a ends of justice, yet it might not be probable to lay down any precise, clearly tangible and amply channelised and ………………..”
28. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604, this Court after reviewing vast series of cases on a doubt of a quashing a FIR reason during paras 108 and 109 as follows:
inflexible discipline or firm formulae and to give an downright list of innumerable kinds of cases wherein such energy should be exercised.
1. Where a allegations finished in a First Information Report or a complaint, even if they are taken during their face value and supposed in their entirety do not prima-facie consecrate any corruption or make out a box conflicting a accused.
2. Where a allegations in a First Information Report and other materials, if any, concomitant a F.I.R. do not divulge a cognizable offence, justifying an hearing by military officers Under Section 156(1) of a Code solely underneath an sequence of a Magistrate within a strech of Section 155(2) of a Code.
3. Where a uncontroverted allegations finished in a FIR or censure and a justification collected in support of a same do not divulge a elect of any corruption and make out a box conflicting a accused.
4. Where, a allegations in a F.I.R. do not consecrate a cognizable corruption yet consecrate usually a non-cognizable offence, no hearing is available by a military officer yet an sequence of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of a Code.
5. Where a allegations finished in a FIR or censure are so absurd and inherently unusual on a basement of that no advantageous chairman can ever strech a usually end that there is sufficient belligerent for move conflicting a accused.
6. Where there is an demonstrate authorised bar engrafted in any of a reserve of a Code or a endangered Act (under that a rapist move is instituted) to a establishment and continuation of a record and/or where there is a specific sustenance in a Code or a endangered Act, providing influential calibrate for a protest of a depressed party.
7. Where a rapist move is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where a move is maliciously instituted with an distant belligerent for wreaking reprisal on a indicted and with a perspective to annoy him due to private and personal grudge.
109. We also give a note of counsel to a outcome that a energy of quashing a rapist move should be exercised really sparingly and with discretion and that too in a rarest of singular cases; that a Court will not be fit in embarking on an enquiry as to a trustworthiness or genuineness or differently of a allegations finished in a F.I.R. or a censure and that a unusual or fundamental powers do not consult an capricious bureau on a Court to act according to a humour or caprice.”
29. Tested from a infer of perspective of a law laid down in a above mentioned judgments, a impugned FIR does not consequence interference, as it is not a box of even a respondent (writ petitioners) that a FIR is compulsory to be quashed on any one of a drift legally recognized by this Court to be sufficient belligerent for quashing an FIR.
30. For all a above reasons, we are of a opinion that a visualisation underneath seductiveness can't be postulated and a same is compulsory to be set aside and we, accordingly, set aside a same. The seductiveness stands allowed.
( P. Sathasivam )
( J. Chelameswar )
Dated: 14th November, 2011.