UNION OF INDIA Vs. DIPAK CHAKRABORTY
LAWS(MEGH)-2020-3-12
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Decided on March 11,2020

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Dipak Chakraborty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,CJ. - (1.) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.06.2017 whereby the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 129 of 2017 filed by the respondent-Shri Dipak Chakraborty Subedar (B&R), was allowed and the charge sheet served upon him at Annexure-9 to the writ petition, has been set aside. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment held that in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'), the Assam Rifles cannot invoke the power of Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (for short '2006 Act') and the General Assam Rifles Court (for short 'GARC') cannot try the offences under the provisions of the PC Act.
(2.) Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Union of India has at the outset cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Ranjit Kumar Saha and Anr.: (2019) 7 SCC 505 holding that Section 4 of the PC Act is not irreconcilable with Section 55 of the 2006 Act, which is a later local statute, to such an extent that two cannot stand together. Section 55 of the 2006 Act can be treated as an extension to the provisions of the PC Act. The Supreme Court therefore, held that GARC can try the members of the Assam Rifles for offences under the PC Act. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the report judgment are reproduced as under:- '21. We reiterate that Section 4 of the PC Act is not irreconcilable with Section 55 of the 2006 Act, which is a later local statute, to such an extent that the two cannot stand together. Therefore, the jurisdiction exercisable by GARC under Section 55 of the 2006 Act can be treated as an exception to the provisions of the PC Act. 22. In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the opinion that GARC has the jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act against the members of the Assam Rifles. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.'
(3.) Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant also produced a copy of the order dated 26.02.2020 by which a review petition filed in that case has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.