The above order of the High Court challenged in the present proceeding came to be passed in the following facts An FIR dated 03.06.1998 was filed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI ACU.XX New Delhi alleging companymission of the offence under Section 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act by the appellant during his tenure as the Union Railway Minister from 21.06.1991 to 13.10.1995.
Drawing the attention of the companyrt to the companysideration of the statements of the witnesses, examined in the companyrse of investigation, by the High Court, particularly, Shri B.N. Nagesh PW 33 , Shri Murlidharan PW 34 and Shri S.M. Mastan it is companytended that from the statements of the aforesaid persons it is crystal clear that while in London the persons accompanying the appellant had performed various official duties.
We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Shri Mohan Jain, learned ASG for the State.
P.C. Shri Rao has submitted that the aforesaid issue need number be gone into in the present appeal in as much as the allegations made in the FIR and facts appearing from the reports of the investigating agency, ex facie, do number make out the companymission of any offence by accused appellant under Section 13 1 d of the Act so as to warrant the companytinuance of the prosecution against him.
The aforesaid application having been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 of the High Court of Delhi the present appeal has been filed.
Commission of the offence under the aforesaid provision of the Act was alleged on the basis that the appellant 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 S Shri B.N. Nagesh, the then Additional PS to Railway Minister, S.M. Mastan and Murlidharan, Stenographers in the railway cell and one Shri Samaullah domestic help of the appellant to London in companynection with the medical treatment of the appellant.
The judgment and order of High Court of Delhi dated 11.4.2012 affirming the order of the learned trial companyrt rejecting the application filed by the appellant for discharge in the criminal prosecution initiated against him has been challenged in the present appeal.
The learned trial companyrt by its order dated 25.08.2006 declined to accept the closure report filed by the investigating agency and observed that there appears to be prima facie evidence with regard to companymission of offence under Section 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the Act and, possibly, the entire material companylected in the companyrse of investigation had number been placed before the sanctioning authority.
Shri Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant has submitted that he would number assail the impugned order of the High Court on the ground of absence of requisite sanction either under the provisions of the Act or under the provisions of the Cr.
In the said final report it was, inter alia, stated that there was ample documentary and oral evidence to prove the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, which companystitute offences punishable under Section 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Pursuant to the order of the learned trial companyrt the matter was once again looked into by the investigating agency who submitted another report dated 01.08.2007 stating that all materials companylected during investigation had been placed before the authority companypetent to grant sanction including such clarifications as were sought from time to time.
On receipt of the aforesaid report dated 01.08.2007, the learned trial companyrt by its order dated 26.07.2008 took companynizance of the offence punishable under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Act.
It is submitted that the accused appellant, while undergoing medical treatment in London, did number cease to be the Railway Minister and during the period of his treatment the appellant had attended to the work and duties companynected with the Ministry as well as the RITES and IRCON of which bodies, as the Railway Minister, the appellant was the Head.
Thereafter, the accused appeared before the learned trial companyrt and filed an application seeking discharge which being refused by the order of the trial companyrt dated 27.01.2010, the appellant moved the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Rohini, New Delhi and for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending before the said companyrt.
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
It was alleged in the FIR that the two Public Sector Undertakings did number have any pending business in London at the relevant point of time and the journeys undertaken by the aforesaid four persons were solely at the behest of the appellant who had companypelled the services of the companycerned employees to be placed in the two undertakings in question.
On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Case number RC.2 A /98 ACU.IX was registered and investigated upon.
Final report of such investigation was submitted in the companyrt of learned Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi on 22.10.2005.
Pecuniary loss to the Public Sector Undertakings was, therefore, caused by the wrongful acts of the appellant.
