HC Expounds: Legal Actions Based Only on Computerized Data Without Corroborative Evidence are Unwarranted, Read Judgement
Recently the Delhi High Court while quashing the proceedings, observed that Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 provide protective shields to public servants against unwarranted prosecutions. The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner, based solely on a computerized entry without corroborative evidence, amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.
Brief Fact :
On March 29, 2022, CBI/AC-II, New Delhi registered RC under Sections 120B and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. this followed a Preliminary Enquiry initiated on November 29, 2018, into regularities in road projects awarded to M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. by the NHAI. the investigation focused on the Kishangarh-Ajmer-Beawar Section of NH-08.
The CBI alleges that between 2008 and 2017, officials from NHAI, including the petitioner, conspired with M/s Isolux Corsan and other entities, accepting bribes to facilitate project execution. Evidence includes a hard disk seized from Guillermo Garcia Moliz, the then CFO of M/s Isolux Corsan, which revealed false invoices and details of bribes paid to Indian officials.
On June 22, 2021, CBI sought permission from the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MorRT&H) under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, to investigate these officers. However, MoRT&H declined the request on December 6, 2021, citing a lack of evidence. Despite this, the CBI proceeded with the registration of the case, leading to the present writ petition challenging the validity of the RC.
Contention of Petitioner :
The counsel for the petitioner argues that the RC registered by CBI is based on unsubstantiated allegations. The petitioner claims no involvement in the execution of the NHAI projects beyond signing the initial agreement. The RC lacks specific allegations of falsification of accounts under Section 477A IPC or any intent to obtain bribes under Section 13(1)(b) Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, the counsel asserts that the RC violates Section 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, which requires prior approval for investigations involving public servants. The petitioner highlights that a connected FIR led to their discharge due to insufficient evidence. Counsel further cite legal precedents supporting their claim that investigations without the required approval are invalid.
Contention of Respondent :
The counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner’s actions were unrelated to any official decisions. As bribery involves receiving undue advantage rather than the act for which it was obtained. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 does not require prior government approval if the act is criminal or constitutes an offence. Approval is necessary only if the offence relates directly to a public servant’s official duties. Section 17A applies only to offences introduced by the 2018 amendment and does not retroactively affect older offences. The denial of approval does not prevent FIR registration. Charges under Sections 120B and 477A IPC are not impacted by Section 17A.
Observation of the Court :
The Court observed that Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provide protective cover only for acts performed by public servants in the discharge of official duties. The petitioner’s conduct falls under this protective shield. The court noted that the petitioner cannot be presumed guilty of an alleged computer entry revealed during an income tax act inquiry without corroborative evidence, particularly given that no anomalies were found in the project execution or the petitioner’s conduct by the Competent Authority, court stated, “Merely on the basis of an alleged computer entry revealed in the course of enquiry under Income Tax Act, petitioner cannot be presumed to have committed the alleged offences, without any corroboratory evidence. Specifically so, in the light of the findings of the Competent Authority wherein no anomaly or irregularity was found in the execution of project or infirmity in the conduct of the petitioner”.
Further, the court highlights the necessity of prior approval under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption(Amendment) Act, 2018 for initiating inquiries against public servants. The CBI’s attempt to bypass this requirement after the Competent Authority’s denial is noted as inappropriate. The court underscores that Section 17A, which aims to prevent arbitrary investigations, should not be retroactively applied to ongoing cases but mandates adherence for proceedings post-amendment, states “The overarching objective behind Section 17A of the PC
(Amendment) Act, 2018 is to provide a protective shield preventing arbitrary ‘enquiry or inquiry or investigation’ against the public servants, who may be wary of taking bona fide decisions under existing provisions of PC Act, 1988, which impedes the functioning of the Government. The purpose is to protect the honest officials and not hurdle the curbing of corruption”. The Court finds the proceedings against the petitioner lacking in substantial evidence and views the current actions as potentially vexatious. Both Section 17A and Section 197 Cr.P.C. serve to protect public servants from unfounded and frivolous prosections. The court highlights “It needs to be underscored that Section 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 as well as Section 197 Cr.P.C., though conceptually acting in different fields, provide a safeguard to the innocent public servants and discourages frivolous and vexatious prosecution.”
The decision of the Court :
The Court decides that following the guidelines set forth by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., the proceedings against the petitioner based solely on a computerized entry without corroborative evidence, constitute an abuse of the judicial process. Hence, the registration of the RC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.
Title: LAMBODAR PRASAD PADHY vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 3270/2023, CRL.M.A. Nos. 30436/2023 & 9560/2024
Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. N. Hariharan (Sr. Advocate), Saurabh Rajpal, Siddhant Singh, Vinay Kumar Singh, Sharian Mukherjee, Rekha Angara and Aman Akhtar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Anupam S. Sharma (SSP), Prakarsh Airan, Harpreet Kalsi, Abhishek Batra, Ripudaman Sharma, Vashisht Rao and Syamantak Modgill
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com