Court dismisses plea for FIR against 26 govt officials, ex-MLA

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Mar 25 2016 | 6:07 PM IST
A court here has dismissed a complaint seeking lodging of an FIR against 26 Delhi government officials and a former MLA for alleged corruption in grant of licences in a wholesale vegetable market due to lack of sanction to prosecute them.
The court said due to want of sanction, which is a condition precedent for directing investigation under the CrPC, no notice of a private complaint against government officials for the alleged offences can be taken.
"Thus, from the mere glance at the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, there can be no doubt that sanction is a condition precedent for directing investigation under section 156(3) CrPC," Special Judge Hemani Malhotra said.
The court said it does not find any ground to order probe or to take cognisance of the complaint, filed by one Vimal Kumar who earlier held a licence in Jheel Subzi Mandi in East Delhi.
Kumar had sought registration of FIR against 27 persons who were public servants for the alleged offences under the IPC, including cheating, forgery, using forged documents as genuine and criminal conspiracy, and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complainant alleged that he was license holder in the wholesale market in 1979 and his licence was not renewed by the said persons who were officials of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee(APMC) and Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board(DAMB).
He alleged that on making an enquiry, he came to know that these officials were involved in corruption and granting licences only to those who were giving huge amounts as bribe to them.
He also claimed irregularities in allotment of licences and shops and lodged a complaint to the Delhi Police chief and the Anti Corruption Branch in January 2015, but said no action was taken.
On the issue of sanction, the complainant's counsel argued that sanction is to be obtained by the investigating agency, once directions are given for investigation.
The court, however, said, "admittedly, no sanction has been obtained by the complainant against the officials of APMC and DAMB ... From the competent authority.
"Therefore, in this scenario, no notice of the private complaint against the officials of APMC and DAMB who are public servants for alleged commission of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC can be taken.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Mar 25 2016 | 6:07 PM IST

Next Story