Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1936 - HC - Indian LawsSearch and seizure - validity of unearthing acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known source of income and collecting documents - petitioner was taken to ACB Headquarters without furnishing him grounds of arrest and sans recording reasons - offence under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a)(c) (d) read with 13(2) and 14 of the P.C. Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The case in hand involves a senior bureaucrat of the State and therefore the learned counsel espousing his cause has endeavoured to articulate his submissions with full gusto and rhetorics. Likewise, State too has locked the horns with full vehemence to defend its impugned actions. However, concern of the Court is to examine legality and propriety of the impugned proceedings on the touchstone of inherent powers of this Court uninfluenced by the status of an individual. In our democratic polity, where rule of law prevails, no individual, howsoever highly placed he may be, can claim immunity much less absolute immunity from the law and every individual citizen is always under law - If the facts and circumstances of the case leading to prosecution of the petitioner for various offences under the P.C. Act are meticulously scrutinized, then it would ipso facto reveal that the concern of the ACB was to unearth alleged large scale corruption in Mines Department upon receipt of information by an Inspector of the Department in this behalf. When an information discloses commission of cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory and it is only in exceptional cases for limited purpose preliminary inquiry can be conducted by the police/investigating agency - Undeniably, the information received by the Inspector of ACB in the matter purportedly unearthed large scale corruption in Mines Department showing involvement of many officials of department and a senior officer of administration, per se delay 2-3 days cannot be categorized as abnormal. Viewed from any angle, the material available on record, if objectively scrutinized at this juncture, when after completion of investigation charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, while taking note of the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, I am unable to subscribe the view that inherent power is to be exercised in the matter to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - no case of misuse of process of law to harass him is made out. Petition dismissed.
|