Hom Karan Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court in prosecution proceedings against the Assistant Commissioner in the Trade & Taxes Department held that the discrepancy in the name in the suicide note is not germane to the issue in the controversy in the present petition.
Facts- The Revisionist, who held the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Trade & Taxes Department, had seized 24 cartons of unaccounted goods at Old Delhi Railway Station. For security reasons, these goods were stored in the officer’s room in the Conference Hall on the 13th Floor, Vyapar Bhawan. During the preparation of the inventory, it was revealed that the said bags were containing costly items like gold, silver and diamond jewellery and cash besides other goods/articles. Police protection was requested for ensuring the safe custody of the sealed goods but was declined.
Hence, the Joint Commissioner assigned two existing security guards from the department, namely Ajay Pal and Devender Sharma. Additionally, two more guards namely Puran Chand and Pitamber Mehto from the Caretaking Branch of the department were also deployed for the same.
Around 10:30 am on 10.05.2014, the guard namely Ajay Pal notified the Revisionist that the locks of the Conference Hall had been broken. Using his keys, the Revisionist opened the lock of the Conference Hall and discovered that the lock on the gate inside the Conference Hall had been broken, and the seized goods were stolen. On the complaint of the Revisionist, FIR was registered u/s 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 17.05.2014, one of the guards namely Pitamber Mehto allegedly committed suicide. In his suicide note, he accused the Revisionist and other officials of theft of the seized goods and held them accountable for his death. Thereafter, Priya Mehto, the deceased guard’s daughter, filed a complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO) at P.S. Ranhola, New Delhi.
On 03.03.2016, a chargesheet was filed u/s. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) and section 409 IPC against the Revisionist. On 15.03.2019, sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority u/s. 19 of the P.C. Act against the Revisionist u/s. 7 r/w section 7A of the P.C. Act and section 120B IPC.
Conclusion- Held that the sanctioning authority has duly applied its mind after considering the various materials and documents placed before it. Only thereafter, the sanctioning authority granted a sanction for prosecuting the Revisionist. The variation in the sections under the sanction order and the chargesheet and the order framing charge has not resulted in the failure of justice. At best, this can be a mere error/omission or irregularity in the sanction order. In addition, the sanctioning authority is not required to specify each of the offences against the public servant. Hence, the argument of the Revisionist regarding the variation of sections in the sanction order and that in the chargesheet and the order framing charge making the order dated 09.03.2022 erroneous is rejected.
The discrepancy which has been pointed out in the present case is that the name of the Revisionist has been written as “Om Karan” instead of “Hom Karan”. I am of the view that the discrepancy in the suicide note is not germane to the issue in the controversy in the present petition. Additionally, this discrepancy is of a minor character and does not call into question the veracity of the suicide note.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This is a CRL. Revision Petition seeking the following prayers:
i. call for the records of the case titled “State Versus Hom Karan, decided by the Ld. Court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Spl. Judge, PC Act(ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi having C. C.N0.289/2019;
ii. set aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special Judge, PC Act (ACB-O1) RADC, New Delhi inC.C.No.289/2019, FIR No.183/2014, U/s. 13.1(c) POC Act and Section 409 of IPC, P.S. I.P. Estate, titled “State Vs. Hom Karan ”;
2. Brief facts of the case are:
i. On 01.03.2014, the Revisionist, who held the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Trade & Taxes Department, had seized 24 cartons of unaccounted goods at Old Delhi Railway Station. For security reasons, these goods were stored in the officer’s room within the Conference Hall on the 13th Floor, Vyapar Bhawan.
ii. On 5.3.2014, a Committee was constituted by the Joint Commissioner Sh. Ashish Mohan (Enf.-II) for preparing During preparation of the inventory, it was revealed that the said bags were containing costly items like gold, silver and diamond jewelry and cash besides other goods/articles. Police protection was requested for ensuring the safe custody of the sealed goods. However, the same was declined and the police personnel advised the officer to deploy their own guards from the department.
iii. On 11.03.2014, an inventory was prepared and the seized goods were securely sealed. To ensure their safety, a committee constituted by the Joint Commissioner assigned two existing security guards from the department, namely Ajay Pal and Devender Sharma. Additionally, two more guards namely Puran Chand and Pitamber Mehto from the Caretaking Branch of the department were also deployed for the same.
iv. On 07.05.2014, a meeting took place in the Conference Hall, and it was discovered that the seal was intact. Around 10:30 am on 10.05.2014, the guard namely Ajay Pal notified the Revisionist that the locks of the Conference Hall had been broken. Upon inspection, the Revisionist found that the lock on the glass gate was broken, but the lock of the Conference Hall was intact. Using his keys, the Revisionist opened the lock of the Conference Hall and discovered that the lock on the gate inside the Conference Hall had been broken, and the seized goods were stolen. The matter was immediately reported to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the police was called. On the complaint of the Revisionist, FIR No. 183/2014 was registered u/s 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code at P.S. I.P. Estate.
v. On 17.05.2014, one of the guards namely Pitamber Mehto allegedly committed suicide. In his suicide note, he accused the Revisionist and other officials of theft of the seized goods and held them accountable for his death. Thereafter, Priya Mehto, the deceased guard’s daughter, filed a complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO) at P.S. Ranhola, New Delhi.
vi. On 19.09.2014, the Crime Scene Report was submitted by the According to the report, it was suggested that the door of the room connected to the Conference Hall, where the seized goods were stored, might have been broken using a tool with a flat tip, approximately 9 cm in width. However, on the contrary, the FSL Report dated 20.02.2015 stated that the lock of the Conference Hall had been opened using the original keys only.
vii. On 20.10.2015, the statement of Puran Chand, one of the guards deployed for the protection of the seized goods was recorded wherein he had disclosed that the incident of theft occurred on 09.05.2014. However, he did not provide any explanation as to why the incident was not reported to the police. Subsequently on 07.12.2015, the police arrested the Revisionist and remanded him to Police Custody.
viii. On 03.03.2016, a chargesheet was filed u/s 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act”) and section 409 IPC against the Revisionist. On 03 .2019, sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority u/s 19 of P.C. Act against the Revisionist u/s 7 r/w section 7A of P.C. Act and section 120B IPC. The chargesheet was filed on 03.03.2016 u/s 13(1)(c) of P.C. Act r/w section 409 IPC.
ix. On 09.03.2022, the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue was pleased to frame charges u/s 409 IPC and section 13(1)(c) of P.C. Act against the Revisionist. This order has been challenged in the present revision petition.
3. It is submitted by Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel for the Revisionist that the impugned order is grossly erroneous since the charges against the Revisionist have been arbitrarily framed without any application of judicial mind. It is argued that the sanction order dated 15.03.2019 does not mention the offences for which the Revisionist has been charged.
4. She submits that section 19 of the P.C. Act requiring prior sanction is necessary for prosecution as it is important to ensure that no frivolous and false prosecution is framed against the public servant. She states that the offences under the sanction order are distinct from the offences under the It is stated that the sanction order was granted for section 7 of P.C. Act and section 120B IPC r/w 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act (as amended in 2018) whereas as per the chargesheet, the Revisionist has been charge-sheeted u/s 13 (1) (c) of P.C. Act and section 409 IPC and charges have also been framed under the same sections.
5. In this regard, she has relied upon the judgement of “Gadhia Bhanuchandra Vallabhadas v. State” [MANU/GJ/0055/1953] which reads as under-
“7…No doubt evidence can be adduced under the Sub-section in respect of a specific charge under any of the clauses of Section 5(1), but in order that an accused can be tried on that specific charge a sanction has to be given at the, outset. The rule in Sub-section (3) has nothing to do with sanction and this contention of the learned Advocate General must therefore fail.
8… Now here the defect is really not one of stating the facts constituting the offence. The facts in so far as they relate to the sum of Rs. 5 700/- are sufficiently stated. What is lacking is that the sanction does not relate to other offences at all. In fact the sanction relates to this particular offence and none other and no question of the inadequacy of facts constituting those other offences therefore really arises in this case. Therefore the position, is that there is no sanction at all in respect of the charges on counts 1 and 4 the charge, and the trial is therefore without jurisdiction.”
6. She further states that the sections under which the sanction has been granted and under which the Revisionist has been charged are distinct offences and have separate ingredients. She draws a comparison:-
