Central Excise Commissioner tries to bribe CBI through his Inspector - Supreme Court clears prosecution – No need of prior sanction
THE CBI booked a case against Parmeshwaran Subramani, Commissioner of Central Excise, Panaji and his Inspector D Gautam.
It was alleged that Subramani , along with others purchased 48 ready built flats for Customs Department at an exorbitant price of Rs. 3 ,55,69,150 /- though the actual market value was much less than the price paid. It was further alleged that this undue favour caused huge loss of Rs. 1.04 crores to the department. Ram Avtar Yadav , Inspector CBI/ ACB/ Goa was conducting the enquiry into said allegations.
It was alleged that on 24.9.2002, Inspector of Central Excise, Gautam made a request on telephone to Ram Avtar Yadav , CBI Inspector to meet him in connection with some personal work. On the next day i.e. 25.9.2002, he met Ram Avtar Yadav , CBI Inspector and during the course of meeting he made a request on behalf of the Central Excise Commissioner Subramani to close the case and also conveyed that Subramani wanted to meet him in connection with the said case and to offer some gratification. On the same day, the Inspector, CBI (Complainant) lodged a written complaint against both the Commissioner and Inspector of Central Excise before Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. Both the accused met the CBI Inspector at a restaurant and offered him a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. On 26.9.2002, Subramani withdrew an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from his savings bank account and handed over the same to the Inspector Gautam to deliver the said amount as part of the bribe to the CBI Inspector. A trap was laid in the presence of two independent witnesses. The Central Excise Inspector was caught red handed while offering and delivering bribe on behalf of the Commissioner at the residence of the CBI Inspector. Thereafter on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Special Judge against both the Commissioner and Inspector of Central Excise for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Special Judge having perused the charge sheet and material on record came to the conclusion that previous sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act was necessary to prosecute a Public Servant for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act and accordingly declined to take cognizance of the offence. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, the CBI filed the Criminal Revision Application No. 49 of 2006 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa . The High Court dismissed the revision of the appellant and upheld the discharge of the respondents for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Act.
The perseverant CBI took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that “High Court fell into error in reading into Section 19 of the Act, the prohibition not to take cognizance of an offence punishable even under Section 12 of the Act without previous sanction of the Government which is not otherwise provided for. The language employed in Section 19 of the Act is couched in mandatory form directing the courts not to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 only, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the Government. The legislature consciously in its wisdom omitted the offence of abetment of any offence punishable under Section 7 or 11 of the Act thereby making its intention clear that no previous sanction as such would be required in cases of offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The High Court read something into Section 19 on its own thereby including Section 12 also into its ambit, which in our opinion is impermissible”
And allowed the CBI appeal. Now the CBI can pursue its prosecution of the Commissioner and Inspector.