A single judge bench of Gujarat High Court comprising of Justice Rajendra M Sareen has [on February 11, 2021] in the case of Ramendrasinh Jaysinh Kushvah v. State of Gujarat [in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 12699 of 2020] held that,
“Corruption has become a social menace and is very much rampant nowadays. It is like a termite or a poisonous snake (that) has penetrated deeply into our systems.”
While denying a pre-arrest bail to an Assistant Director of Gujarat State Land Development Nigam Ltd. Ramendrainh Kushvah, the Court made these remarks against the corrupt practices of the bureaucrats.
Brief Facts
The petitioner – original accused No.1 preferred this petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with the offence registered with ACB Police Station, Godhra for the offences punishable under sections Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment), 2018.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court noted that as per the gist of the FIR and case of the prosecution, the petitioner - original Accused No.1 has misused his official position and by involving in corrupt practice committed alleged offence in as much as against the official income earned by the petitioner, as disclosed in IT returns, during check period is worth Rs.5,92,27,582/-, and considering deduction towards expense, his illicit income in the nature of investment and property owned is worth Rs.3,71,23,208/-. Thus, there was rise in the income to the extent of 62.68% as compared to the source of official income.
Furthermore, the Court observed that it could not be gainsaid that the corruption has become a social menace and is very much rampant nowadays. It is like a termite or a poisonous snake which has penetrated deeply into our systems. It was often quoted that the Public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Dr.Subrahmanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI and Another (2014) taking very serious note on the level of corruption prevailing in the country and the objects of enacting the Prevention of Corruption Act, had observed as under:
“71. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crime doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.
73. The PC Act, 1988 is a special statute and its preamble shows that it has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for the matters connected therewith. It is intended to make the corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions. It came to be enacted because Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as amended from time to time was inadequate to deal with the offences of corruption effectively. The new Act now seeks to provide for speedy trial of offences punishable under the Act in public interest as the Legislature had become aware of corruption amongst the public servants.
74. Corruption corrodes the moral fabric of the society and corruption by public servants not only leads to corrosion of the moral fabric of the society but also harmful to the national economy and national interest, as the persons occupying high posts in the Government by misusing their power due to corruption can cause considerable damage to the national economy, national interest and image of the country.
77. This Court in Shobha Suresh Jumani[76], took judicial notice of the fact that because of the mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight or because of the ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by a few or because of change of environment in the society by adoption of materialistic approach, there is cancerous growth of corruption which has affected the moral standards of the people and all forms of governmental administration.
78. The PC Act, 1988 enacts the legislative policy to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand. All public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences.[77]
79. The two Judge Bench of this Court observed in Sanjiv Kumar[78] that the case before them had brought to the fore the rampant corruption in the corridors of politics and bureaucracy.
80. In a comparatively recent decision of this Court in Subramanian Swamy, this court was concerned with the question whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting the public servant for an offence under the PC Act, 1988 and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under that Act is required to take appropriate decision within the time specified in Clause (I)(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain1 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission.
Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anticorruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption……….” Dealing with Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 which bars a court from taking cognizance of the cases of corruption against a public servant under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the PC Act, 1988, unless the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, has accorded sanction observed that this provision virtually imposes fetters on private citizens and also on prosecutors from approaching court against corrupt public servants. Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution but the protection against malicious prosecution which is extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials.
81. In Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar11, this Court observed that corruption was not only a punishable offence but also, “undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes”.
82. In R.A. Mehta10, the two Judge Bench of this Court made the following observations about corruption in the society:
“Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the earliest as it shakes “the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society”. Liberty cannot last long unless the State is able to eradicate corruption from public life. Corruption is a bigger threat than external threat to the civil society as it corrodes the vitals of our polity and society. Corruption is instrumental in not proper implementation and enforcement of policies adopted by the Government. Thus, it is not merely a fringe issue but a subject matter of grave concern and requires to be decisively dealt with.”
The Court observed that in view of the above stated legal position and considering the gravity of the offence punishable under the PC Act enacted to meet with the menace of corruption with a very strong hand, granting bail to the present petitioner, who was prima facie involved in the alleged offences under the P.C. Act, it was not desirable to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed.
Case Details
Name: Ramendrasinh Jaysinh Kushvah v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 12699 of 2020
Date of Decision: February 11, 2021
Bench: Justice Rajendra M Sareen
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
