“Bald Allegation Of Participation In Alleged Conspiracy”: SC Upholds Discharge Of Accused In IIllegal Gratification & Bribery Case
|The Supreme Court upheld the discharge of an accused in an alleged illegal gratification and bribery case while observing that he got roped in the charge sheet based on a bald allegation of participation in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court dismissed the appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the discharge of the respondent (ex-Managing Director of M/s Khimji Poonja Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd.) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) for allegedly abetting the offence of bribery and payment of illegal gratification to an Air Cargo personnel.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Therefore, except for the bald allegation of participation in the alleged conspiracy without giving any details of the conspiracy, the respondent has been roped in the charge sheet. His name did not appear in the First Information Report. Taking the material forming part of the charge sheet as true, it cannot be said that a prima facie case of involvement of the respondent was made out. In the circumstances, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court when it discharged the respondent.”
ASG Aishwariya Bhati represented the appellant, while AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh appeared for the respondents.
The CBI had alleged that an authorized signatory of the company along with the respondent conspired with customs officials to clear the refund claims of the Company’s clients. The alleged bribes involved alleged amounts paid to officials for clearing refunds related to Special Additional Duty (SAD).
The Special Judge under the PC Act rejected the application for discharge made by the respondent. However, the High Court allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent and passed an order of discharge.
The Supreme Court stated that the charge sheet contained no allegation against the respondent to connect him with the payment.
“The prosecution is not relying upon any telephonic conversation between the respondent and any of the coaccused or the person to whom illegal gratification was allegedly paid,” the Court remarked.
The Bench noted that the High Court had already dealt with the material elaborately. The Court pointed to diary entries maintained by one of the accused, where references to the alleged amounts were found. While the name "Dilipbhai" was written at the top of the relevant pages, the letters "DM" were used in connection with the payments, which, according to the prosecution's own admission, referred to one “Dushyant Mulani,” not the respondent, “Dilip Mulani.”
“The High Court has observed that in the diary entries made by accused no.1, the word “Dilipbhai” has been mentioned at the top. Against the entries of the amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, the letters DM have been mentioned. However, no witness stated that the letters DM meant the respondent, not Dushyant Mulani. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the discharge application, the appellant admitted that letters DM refer to Dushyant Mulani and not the respondent,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court stated that a prima facie involvement of the respondent was made out by the prosecution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Dilip Mulani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 712)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASG Aishwariya Bhati; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Aakansha Kaul, Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Mohd. Akhil, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi and Abhijit Pandove
Respondents: AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh; Advocates Nishant Sharma and Patil Avi Vilas