In a significant case, the Delhi High Court upheld the prosecution proceedings against Sales Tax Assistant Commissioner on the corruption charges against him based on the suicide note.
Hom Karan, 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.
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.
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. 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 under section 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and 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.
A chargesheet was filed under section 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 under section 19 of the P.C. Act against the Revisionist under section 7 read with section 7A of the P.C. Act and section 120B IPC.
It is submitted by Ms. Geeta Luthra, 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.
Further alleged that there are discrepancies in the alleged suicide note of the deceased Pitamber Mehto since the suicide note and the complaint made by the daughter of the deceased both mention the name of the Revisionist as “Om Karan” and not “Hom Karan”.
It was stated by Ms. Luthra that the Revisionist was taken into 6 days police custody, however, no recovery has been made either from the Revisionist or from his premises or relatives. She states that mere retention of property entrusted to a person without any misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust unless there is some actual use by the accused in violation of law or contract, coupled with dishonest intention.
“The variation in the sections under the sanction order and the chargesheet and the order framing charge has not failed 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.”, Justice Jasmeet Singh held.
Furthermore, the court held that the discrepancy in the suicide note is not germane to the issue in the controversy in the petition, which is minor and does not call into question the veracity of the suicide note.
The Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
