Taking Staff to London by Minister in connection with medical treatment - Not Crime - SC
Mr. C K Jaffer Sharief was Railway Minister of India between 1991 and 1995. In 1998, the CBI filed an FIR against him alleging commission of the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Acton the basis that he had dishonestly made the Managing Directors of RITES (Rail India Technical & Economics Services Ltd.) and IRCON (Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.) to approve the journeys of an Additional PS to Railway Minister, two Stenographers in the railway cell and domestic help of the Minister to London in connection with the medical treatment of the Minister.It was alleged in the FIR that the two Public Sector Undertakings did not have any pending business in London at the relevant point of time and the journeys undertaken by the four persons were solely at the behest of the Minister who had compelled the services of the employees to be placed in the two undertakings in question. Pecuniary loss to the Public Sector Undertakings was, therefore,caused by the wrongful acts of the Minister.
In 2005, the CBI filed a closure report as no sanction for prosecution was granted by the Competent Authority. But the trial court refused to close the case and decided to proceed with the case. The accused minister filed an application seeking discharge, which was refused by the court on 27.01.2010. The accused former minister filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the petition on 11.04.2012. The former minister then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister in the discharge of his public duties,however insignificant such tasks may have been and no question of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant can arise. As a Minister, it was for him to decide on the number and identity of the officials and supporting staff who should accompany him to London if it was anticipated that he would be required to perform his official duties while in London. If in the process, the Rules or Norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct.
The Supreme Court did not find any reason to allow the prosecution to continue. Such continuance, the Supreme Court viewed, would be an abuse of the process of court and therefore it will be the plain duty of the court to interdict the same. So, the Supreme Court, in a recent judgement, quashed the proceedings initiated in the year 1998.