P.C. MISHRA Vs. STATE (C.B.I.)
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
March 27,2014
P.C. Mishra
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE (C.B.I.)
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KANTA PRASHAD RIZAK RAM VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAILASH NATH AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
A DEVENDRAN R PANDIAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU :STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
HARSHAD S MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DILAWAR SINGH VS. PARVINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BANGARU LAXMAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE VS. VIJAYAN V.P. [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-20] [REFERRED TO]A. SRINIVASULU VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2023-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
TIPRU BURUMA VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, NEW DELHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH RAJ VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. V. ARULKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question whether the pardon granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to the second Respondent, against whom R.C. No.15(A) 96 DLI dated 29.2.1996 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, is legally sustainable.
(2.)The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered R.C. No.15(A) 96 DLI dated 29.2.1996 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") on receipt of a written complaint on 29.2.1996 from Gulshan Sikri, proprietor of M/s Filtrex India, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, against P.C. Mishra, the then Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Appellant herein, for demanding Rs.4,000/- as bribe for settling the appeal filed against the order of Sales Tax Officer.
(3.)CBI, on 1.3.1996, laid a trap and the accused, PC Mishra, and his Reader Ravi Bhatt, second Respondent herein, were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. Both the accused persons were arrested by the CBI on 1.3.1996 and, during the course of investigation, an application was filed by the co-accused Ravi Bhatt before the Special Judge, CBI, for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was marked by Special Judge to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who assigned the same to the Metropolitan Magistrate and the statement of second Respondent under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 7.8.1996. During the course of investigation, the witnesses had been examined and records scrutinized and it transpired that the co-accused Ravi Bhatt had accepted the bribe money for and on behalf of the Appellant. The CBI, on investigation, noticed that the second Respondent was not a leading accused in the case and it was considered necessary to take him as an approver to prove the various missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which was otherwise not available to the investigating agency. Consequently, the CBI on 24.10.1996 filed an application under Section 306 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for grant of pardon to the second Respondent, Ravi Bhatt. The Special Judge marked that application to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the said purpose, who, in turn, marked the same to the Metropolitan Magistrate.
(2.)The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered R.C. No.15(A) 96 DLI dated 29.2.1996 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") on receipt of a written complaint on 29.2.1996 from Gulshan Sikri, proprietor of M/s Filtrex India, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, against P.C. Mishra, the then Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Appellant herein, for demanding Rs.4,000/- as bribe for settling the appeal filed against the order of Sales Tax Officer.
(3.)CBI, on 1.3.1996, laid a trap and the accused, PC Mishra, and his Reader Ravi Bhatt, second Respondent herein, were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. Both the accused persons were arrested by the CBI on 1.3.1996 and, during the course of investigation, an application was filed by the co-accused Ravi Bhatt before the Special Judge, CBI, for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was marked by Special Judge to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who assigned the same to the Metropolitan Magistrate and the statement of second Respondent under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 7.8.1996. During the course of investigation, the witnesses had been examined and records scrutinized and it transpired that the co-accused Ravi Bhatt had accepted the bribe money for and on behalf of the Appellant. The CBI, on investigation, noticed that the second Respondent was not a leading accused in the case and it was considered necessary to take him as an approver to prove the various missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which was otherwise not available to the investigating agency. Consequently, the CBI on 24.10.1996 filed an application under Section 306 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for grant of pardon to the second Respondent, Ravi Bhatt. The Special Judge marked that application to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the said purpose, who, in turn, marked the same to the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.