Decision Binding Because Of Its Ratio, Not Conclusion, Says Delhi High Court

In a judgment which upheld the order of framing of charge by the trial court, the Delhi High Court observed, “that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein.”

Justice Yashwant Verma, on July 20, while dealing with the criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., upheld the order passed by Special Judge of the CBI, framing charge against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as PC Act, 1988).

FACTS

Complainant General V.K. Singh, the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS) vide his letters dated 30.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 alleged that during a meeting in his office on 22.09.2010, the 2 petitioner had offered him a bribe of Rs. 14 crore on behalf of one Mr. Ravi Rishi to clear the file for procurement of 1676 HMVs (High Mobility Vehicles) including Tatra vehicles by the first week of October, 2010. 

Based on the complaints so received and after conducting the preliminary inquiry, FIR under under Section 12 of PC Act, 1988 came to be registered. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and charge was framed under Section 12 of the PC Act.

CONTENTIONS

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order on framing of charge is contrary to the settled legal position, inasmuch as no offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 was made out. It was further argued that, keeping in view the language of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 the essential ingredients i.e., demand for the purpose of Sections 7 & 11 of the PC Act, 1988 is necessary and the said ingredient was missing in the instant case.

It was further stated that no demand was ever made and the alleged offer was at best a voluntary act of the petitioner. They also submitted that there was an unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and lodging of the FIR. It was also submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed an error while placing reliance on Section 116 of the IPC. According to him the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 was a distinct offence from Section 116 of the IPC which dealt with the abetment of offences for which no express provision was provided in the Code.

On the other hand, Anil Grover, Standing Counsel who appeared on behalf of the CBI submitted that the entire petition was without any merit and the petitioner was not entitled for any relief under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the order passed by the learned Special Judge did not call for any interference and the exercise at this stage should be confined to consider whether the material on record prima-facie proves that the offence was committed or not.

It was submitted by the CBI that Section 12 was appropriately attracted as an offer to a public servant to receive a gratification in order to do an official act in an illicit manner to clear the file for procurement of Tatra vehicles clearly constitutes an offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988.

OBSERVATIONS

The Court observed that, “the FIR and the final report submitted by the CBI before the trial court clearly establishes that an element of abetment that is “offer of bribe” is very much in existence for doing a particular thing. Whether the offence under Section 7 or 11 is committed or not has no relevance to attract the provision of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988.”

It was noted that if a person gave illegal gratification to a public servant, he can either accept it with the knowledge that it is illegal gratification or he can reject it and make a complaint against the person who paid it. If it is accepted, the public servant (Section 7), and also the person (Section 12) who made payment will be liable for punishment. 

The Court relied upon the judgment in R.P. Malik v. State of NCT of Delhi & Others, wherein it was held that for an offence under Section 12 of PC Act, 1988 offer to bribe would amount to abetment irrespective of the fact whether cash was placed before the public servant or not and whether he agrees to accept the same or not.

It was observed that, "the public servant himself is the complainant and has lodged an FIR for abetment of commission of an offence under Sections 7 & 11 of the PC Act, 1988. It is settled legal position that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein."

The Court dismissed the revision petition.