Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1586 - HC - Indian LawsOffences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) 1988 - Petitioner has received illegal gratification - Held that:- The material in support of the same and the further narration of the sequence of events, do not indicate a direct demand or receipt of illegal gratification by the petitioner, from any party. There is reference to accused no.2, the petitioner's son, or a the firm of which Accused no. 4 & 5 were partners, of having received huge amounts, which were said to be compensation amounts payable to land owners. The said compensation amounts were termed as additional compensation paid directly by Itasca and UTL to land owners through the firm of which accused no. 4 & 5 were partners - The said compensation amounts were termed as additional compensation paid directly by Itasca and UTL to land owners through the firm of which accused no. 4 & 5 were partners. These above circumstances are apparent, prima facie, but whether the said amounts were paid to and received on behalf of the petitioner cannot be presumed. Irregularities in allotment of lands - Held that:- This was not a possibility, the allotment of land is not made by the petitioner as is evident from the facts stated. The allotment is made by the SHLCC. Undue influence on various persons including the officials of the KIADB - Held that:- The role of the petitioner does not go beyond the stage of having been a ex-officio member of the SHLCC. The allegation is hence vague and would not lead to framing of any tenable charge. The case of the prosecution is that there were transfer of funds, which were characterized as illegal gratification that was ultimately received by the petitioner through the other accused. The transfer was as a result of a well engineered conspiracy involving two corporate bodies from whose accounts the monies came, namely, Itasca, purportedly represented by Accused no.3 and UTL, represented by accused no.6. Significantly, the said corporate bodies are not named in the charge sheet. This is inexplicable as there is no immunity available to the companies from prosecution, merely because prosecution would be in respect of offences for which punishment prescribed is mandatory imprisonment and fine. It is also to be kept in view that prosecution, conviction and sentencing are different stages in a criminal trial. The stage for sentencing is reached only after a verdict of guilt is pronounced after a full fledged trial. Further, for the reason that the two corporate bodies namely, Itasca and UTL not having been named in the charge sheet as the accused, the theory of conspiracy has no foundation and cannot be sustained against any of the accused. Petition allowed.
|