Gopi Chand vs Cbi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5384 Del

          *              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: 21st September, 2010

                                    Date of Order: November 26, 2010

                                     + W.P (Crl.) No.148/2010
%                                                                          26.11.2010

         Gopi Chand                                                        ...Petitioner

         Versus

         CBI                                                          ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. Ashok Soni for petitioner.
Ms. Suchiti Chandra for Mr. Vikas Pahwa for respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                              JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.DAI-

1990-A-0041/CBI/ACB/New Delhi under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) and the

proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident of

taking/accepting bribe of Rs.500/- by him had taken place on 10th September

1990 when he was working as Suptd. (Commercial) in the office of DRM,

W.P. (Crl) No.148/2010 Gopi Chand v CBI Page 1 Of 3 Northern Railways and a raid was conducted and he was arrested by CBI trap

team for accepting and demanding bribe of Rs.500. He retired from service on

31st July 1994. CBI after completion of investigation asked for sanction from the

office of petitioner, however, the office of petitioner did not give sanction to CBI

with the result that CBI had to file a closure report which was filed on 2nd January

1996. However, learned Special Judge did not accept the closure report and

asked for further investigation. A domestic enquiry was also conducted against

the petitioner qua demand of bribe and charge sheet was served upon the

petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after his enquiry held the petitioner guilty for

accepting illegal gratification and held that the charges leveled against the

petitioner were proved. The petitioner filed an appeal/ representation against the

enquiry officer before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide

order dated 11th July 1994 accepted the appeal partly and observed that there

was possibility of Leela Dhar, complainant having planted money, when petitioner

was not in his room. However, the Appellate Authority observed that it has been

proved beyond reasonable doubt that Leela Dhar contractor was asked to come

twice and at that time another contractor was sitting with the petitioner. All that

points out that the petitioner may be eliciting some favour otherwise the petitioner

would have not asked Leela Dhar to visit him or that he had no role to play. Thus

the punishment of petitioner was reduced from major penalty to minor penalty.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since he was

exonerated from the charges of accepting bribe, therefore, the FIR against him

should be quashed. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that there was so

much delay in his case and he was now 76 years of age, therefore, his right of

speedy trial was denied to him and hence the FIR should be quashed on this

W.P. (Crl) No.148/2010 Gopi Chand v CBI Page 2 Of 3 ground.

4. A perusal of the order of Appellate Authority and the Enquiry Officer would

show that the Appellate Authority did not have vision of law and the

circumstances considered by the Appellate Authority for reducing penalty were

those which had no bearing on the case. Even though the appellate authority had

come to conclusion that the petitioner did call the complainant to his office and he

was there with other contractors with a view to elicit favour, still reduced the

penalty. I consider that the appellate authority, at the fag end of the career of the

petitioner, wanted to show mercy on the petitioner so that petitioner may continue

to get pensioners' benefits and other benefits despite the petitioner having

indulged into corruption.

5. The Courts and such senior officials have been showing mercy to the

corrupt officials and that is the reason that corruption in this country has now

spread so much that people have started losing faith in the State managers and

State administration. It also seems that sanction in the case of the petitioner was

not granted when he was in service due to his influence or due to reason that

senior officials wanted to help him.

6. In view of my foregoing discussion, I do not find any force in this petition.

The petition is hereby dismissed.

November 26, 2010                              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




W.P. (Crl) No.148/2010   Gopi Chand v CBI                Page 3 Of 3