Case Note & Summary
The criminal writ petition was filed in 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Special Judge for C.B.I., Greater Mumbai, dated November 21, 2003, rejecting the petitioner’s application for discharge in Special Case No. 56 of 1998. The petitioner, Roop Kishore Dargar, was the Chief Marketing Manager of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (RCF) and was named as Accused No.1 in a charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. for offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that during 1987-1991, the petitioner, along with other senior officers of RCF, conspired to cheat the company by providing unauthorized supply of Sodium Nitrate and Sodium Nitrite to a private party, Pradip Ramrakhiani, on clean credit basis contrary to the company’s policy of ‘Pay Cash - Carry Basis’, causing a wrongful loss of approximately Rs.50.37 lakhs. According to the charge sheet, the petitioner approved recommendations to continue credit facilities to the private party despite outstanding dues of Rs.17.70 lakhs, and later made false statements about the party’s performance to extend further credit. The petitioner sought discharge on the grounds that no valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained before taking cognisance, as he was still in service; that the material on record did not disclose a prima facie case against him; and that his actions were commercial decisions taken in the best interest of the company, which had been ratified by the Board of Directors who thrice declined to grant sanction for prosecution. The Special Judge rejected the discharge application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court was called upon to examine the legality of that order. The judgment text provided is incomplete, and no final decision or reasoning is available.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Sanction for Prosecution - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 19 - The petitioner contended that the charge sheet was filed while he was still in service, making sanction under Section 19 mandatory; the absence of sanction rendered the cognisance invalid (Para 3).
B) Criminal Conspiracy - Cheating and Corruption - Prima Facie Case - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120B, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) - The petitioner argued that the material on record, even if accepted, did not make out a case of conspiracy or cheating, as his actions were in line with the company’s commercial policy and in its best interest, and that the Board of Directors had declined to sanction prosecution on similar grounds (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court could take cognisance of the offence against the petitioner without sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; whether a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner; whether the petitioner was falsely implicated
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 121
Criminal Writ Petition No. 31 of 2004
Harish Jagtiani, Mohan Bir Singh, A.S. Gadkari (A.P.P.), J.C. Satpute
The State, C.B.I., A.C.B.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging rejection of discharge application in a corruption case
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.11.2003 passed by Special Judge rejecting discharge application and consequent discharge from Special Case No. 56 of 1998
Filing Reason
Rejection of discharge application by Special Judge for C.B.I. on the grounds of lack of sanction and no prima facie case
Previous Decisions
Special Judge for C.B.I., Greater Mumbai, rejected discharge application in Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2000 in Special Case No. 56 of 1998 on November 21, 2003
Issues
Whether the court could take cognisance of the offence against the petitioner without sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption against the petitioner
Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated when his actions were consistent with the company’s commercial policy and approved by higher authorities
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was mandatory as he was in service when the charge sheet was filed, and the absence of sanction vitiated cognisance.
Petitioner contended that the documentary evidence and statements, even if taken at face value, did not establish his involvement in any conspiracy, as he merely followed the prevailing credit policy and his decisions were in the commercial interest of RCF.
Petitioner highlighted that the Board of Directors had thrice declined to grant sanction for prosecution, opining that the credit facility was a normal practice and the petitioner had facilitated substantial recovery of outstanding dues.
Petitioner claimed he was singled out for prosecution while other officers and board members who supported the same decisions were not arraigned, undermining the conspiracy theory.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I., Greater Mumbai, dated November 21, 2003 in Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2000 in Special Case No. 56 of 1998, thereby rejecting the discharge application preferred by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner at the relevant time was working as the Chief Marketing Manager of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited at Mumbai.
That in pursuance of the note put up by Shri A.T. Muley, Dy. Marketing Manager, RCF Ltd., Chembur, Mumbai, the said Shri R.K. Dargar approved and recommended further credit facility to the said Shri Pradip Ramrakhiani falsely mentioning that the party’s performance had improved and that the stock of the aforesaid chemical material was at zero level.
Procedural History
Charge sheet filed on 30.09.1998 in Special Case No. 56 of 1998. Petitioner filed discharge application (Miscellaneous Application No. 267 of 2000) before Special Judge, which was rejected on 21.11.2003. Present Criminal Writ Petition No. 31 of 2004 filed against said rejection.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120B, 420
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(2), 13(1)(d), 19
