- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State (Through Cbi) .
Case Summary — Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral)
Factual and Procedural Background
A charge-sheet was filed on 16.05.2000 against Mr P.K. Samal (a public servant), the present petitioner J.K. Singh and others under sections 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with sections 120-B, 420, 407, 468 and 471 IPC. Cognizance was taken on 12.11.2001, the order on charge was passed on 15.03.2003 and formal charges were framed on 25.03.2003. On 20.06.2003 Mr P.K. Samal died. The petitioner filed an application before the Special Judge on 28.04.2004 seeking re-framing/deletion of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act in view of Samal's death. As no order was passed by the trial court, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. 1395/2004 under Section 482 CrPC before this court. This court directed on 14.05.2004 that the Special Judge dispose of the petitioner's pending application (preferably on 20.05.2004) and indicated the court could add, alter or amend the charges if necessary. The petitioner contended that despite that direction the trial court had not disposed of the application and that the irregularity would fall within Section 397 CrPC.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, following the death of a public servant co-accused, charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 survive against the remaining accused.
- Whether the trial court should modify, alter or amend the charges consequent upon the death of the public servant co-accused.
- Whether the trial court's alleged failure to dispose of the petitioner's application despite this court's direction constituted an irregularity actionable under Section 397 CrPC (and whether this court should call for the record and pass orders accordingly).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Rajiv Nayyar)
- After the death of Mr P.K. Samal (the only public servant among the accused), the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act no longer survived against the remaining accused and therefore the charges needed to be re-framed to delete those provisions.
- He relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB v. State through CBI: 2004 [1] JCC 218 : 2004 (72) DRJ 693, which indicated that where public servants and private individuals are co-accused and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are charged, on the death of the public servant the offences under that Act cannot be proceeded with.
- An application for re-framing had been filed before the Special Judge on 28.04.2004 but was not disposed of despite this court's direction of 14.05.2004; this omission amounted to an irregularity falling within Section 397 CrPC enabling higher court intervention.
Respondent / CBI's Position (Mr. Tiwari)
- The CBI accepted that, consequent upon the death of the public servant, modification of the charges with reference to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary.
- The CBI submitted that the modification ought to be carried out by the court below, but had no objection to this court directing the trial court to modify the charges insofar as the Prevention of Corruption Act was concerned.
- The CBI stated that other offences under the IPC would remain the same.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB v. State through CBI: 2004 [1] JCC 218 : 2004 (72) DRJ 693 | Indicated that when public servants and private individuals are co-accused and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are coupled with IPC offences, on the death of the public servant the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be proceeded with. | The court noted this authority as supporting the petitioner's contention that charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act should not survive the death of the public servant co-accused and, in view of the overall discussion and the CBI's concurrence, directed the trial court to modify/alter/amend the charges accordingly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the petitioner's contention that the death of the only public servant co-accused (Mr P.K. Samal) required modification of the charges, specifically deletion or amendment of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner relied on a prior Single Judge decision to the effect that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be proceeded with after the death of a public servant co-accused when such charges are framed jointly with IPC offences.
The court recorded the CBI's acknowledgment that modification of the Prevention of Corruption Act charges was necessary and that the modification should properly be carried out by the trial court; the CBI raised no objection to a direction being issued to the trial court to modify those charges. The CBI confirmed that offences under the IPC would remain unaffected.
In light of these points—the petitioner's contention, the cited authority, the earlier direction of this court to the trial court to decide the pending application, and the CBI's concurrence—the court concluded that the appropriate course was to direct the trial court to modify, alter or amend the charges as necessary in consequence of the death of the public servant co-accused, and then to proceed with placement before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for assignment. The trial court record was ordered to be returned immediately.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
Holding (direct effect): The petition was disposed of. The court directed the trial court to modify and/or alter and/or amend the charges in view of the death of Mr P.K. Samal (the public servant co-accused). After modification, the matter is to be placed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for assignment to the concerned court and the trial court record is to be sent back immediately. The CBI indicated that it had no objection to such a direction and that offences under the IPC were to remain unchanged.
Implications: The immediate consequence is alteration of the charges in the trial court to reflect that the Prevention of Corruption Act charges cannot proceed against the remaining accused insofar as they relied on the deceased public servant; IPC charges are to continue. The opinion does not articulate any broader precedent beyond applying the cited authority and directing the trial court to act; no new expansive legal principle was declared by this order.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral)— This revision petition has been occasioned because of the death of one of the co-accused (Mr P.K Samal) who was a public servant. The charge-sheet in this matter was filed on 16.05.2000 against the said Mr P.K Samal, the present petitioner (J.K Singh) and others under sections 13 (2) & 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-b/420/407/468/471 ipc. On 12.11.2001, cognizance was taken. The order on charge was passed on 15.03.2003 and formal charges were framed on 25.03.2003 under the aforesaid sections against all the accused.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 20.06.2003, Mr P.K Samal, who was the only public servant amongst the array of accused persons, had died and as a result of which it became necessary that the charges framed against the remaining accused be modified as a consequence of the death of the said public servant. His contention was that after the death of Mr Samal, the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 no longer survived against the remaining accused. He cited the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB v. State through CBI: 2004 [1] JCC 218 : 2004 (72) DRJ 693 where, under similar circumstances, it was indicated that when public servants and other private individuals are arrayed as co-accused and some of the offences are under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 coupled with other offences under the IPC, on the death of a public servant, the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be proceeded with. It has also been pointed out by Mr Rajiv Nayyar, the learned senior counsel, who appears for the petitioner, that an application had been filed before the Special Judge on 28.04.2004 indicating that consequent upon the death of the said public servant, the charges were required to be re-framed by deleting the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, as no orders were being passed on that application, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, Crl.M.C 1395/2004 was filed before this court. Certain miscellaneous applications were also moved in that petition. While disposing of the petition, this court by an order dated 14.05.2004, directed that the application of the petitioner pending before the Special Judge be disposed of, in the first instance, preferably on 20.05.2004 and it was also directed that if the court felt it necessary, it could add, alter or amend the charges and proceed in accordance with law. Mr Nayyar submits that even after the said order was passed way back on 14.05.2004, the application has not been disposed of by the trial court. This, according to him, would amount to an irregularity in the proceedings and, therefore, would fall within the ambit of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enabling the court to call for the record and pass appropriate orders thereon.
3. Mr. Tiwari, who appears for the CBI, submits that there is no doubt that consequent upon the death of the public servant (Mr Samal), there is a necessity for modification of the charges with reference to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He submits that this, however, ought to be done by the court below. He, however, submitted that he would have no objection to a direction being given to the court below to modify the charges accordingly insofar as the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are concerned. He further submits that insofar as the other offences under the IPC are concerned, they shall, however, remain the same.
4. Accordingly, I find that the appropriate order to be passed in this case would be to direct the trial court to modify and/or alter and/or amend the charges in view of the discussion above. Thereafter, the matter be placed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who may assign the matter to the concerned court. The trial court record be sent back immediately.
This petition stands disposed of. Dasti.
Alert