Guwahati

Gauhati High Court dismisses Rounak Ali’s petition challenging charges framed against him

Sentinel Digital Desk

Published:5th Jun, 2024 at 9:01 AM

Staff Reporter

GUWAHATI: The bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rounak Ali Hazarika challenging the charges framed against him by the Special Judge, Guwahati, with the view that the petition is devoid of any merit.

The present application is filed assailing an order dated October 19, 2023 passed by the Special Judge, Assam, in Special Case No. 02/2022, whereby charges under Aection 120-B IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) had been framed against the petitioner.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

On June 2, 2021, a complaint was lodged by one Hasanur Ahmed before the Superintendant of Police, Chief Minister's Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell, Rupnagar, Assam, alleging primarily that the petitioner was a corrupt police officer, who had accumulated properties worth crores of rupees.

On the basis of such a complaint against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry (No. 01/2021) was initiated with the approval granted by the Chief Minister, Assam. After completion of the preliminary inquiry, a report was submitted before the Chief Minister, Assam, seeking approval to initiate a regular inquiry, and such approval was also granted.

Accordingly, a regular inquiry (RE No. 02/2021) was initiated, and a report was submitted by the inquiry officer, concluding that the petitioner had accumulated disproportionate assets compared to his income from known sources to the tune of 164.80%. Accordingly, it was suggested to register a criminal case and investigate the petitioner.

On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, an FIR was lodged by the Deputy SP, CM's Special Vigilance Cell, Assam, on October 5, 2021, before the officer-in-charge, Vigilance PS, CM's Vigilance Cell, and accordingly, Vigilance PS case No. 06/2021 under Section 13(1)(a)(b)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, was registered, and an investigation was started.

After completion of the investigation, the I/O submitted the charge sheet on November 30, 2021, and subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was also filed on January 23, 2022. The charge sheet was laid under Section 120B IPC, read with Section 13(1)(b)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and under Section 3(c)/4(1)/5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

A special case (02/2022) was registered, and the Special Judge, Assam, took cognizance of the offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(b)/13(2) of the PC Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, by way of the impugned order, charges under Section 120B of the of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the PC Act were framed.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

1988. The only ground urged by Mr. Choudhury, senior counsel for the petitioner, to assail the proceeding in Special Case No. 02/2022 is non-compliance with Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988. It is the case of the petitioner that no approval was sought from the competent authority while initiating the inquiry or investigation as required under Section 17A of the Act, 1988. According to Mr. Choudhury, at the time of the initiation of the inquiry, FIR, or investigation, the petitioner was a member of the All India Service (IPS), and as such, in terms of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, the Central Government alone could have removed him from his service, and therefore, in terms of Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, an approval for the initiation of the inquiry or FIR ought to have been obtained from the Central Government, which has not been done in the present case.

The approval obtained from the state government, more particularly from the chief minister, is not in the eye of the law as per the mandate of Section 17A of the PC Act. Argues, Mr. Choudhury.

According to Mr. Choudhury, Section 17A of the Act does not mandate any exception to the provision qua disproportionate asset cases, and the only exception to Section 17-A is in trap cases, i.e., for cases involving the arrest of a person on the spot on charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or any other person.

Mr. Choudhury, Senior Counsel, further contends that, from the reading of the text of Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, the intention of the legislature is very clear: the exemption of prior approval in initiating inquiry, inquiry, or investigation is applicable only in cases involving arrest on a trap-taking bribe. Therefore, according to Mr. Choudhury, the learned trial court has committed a serious error while passing the impugned order.

This Court is of the view that not only do the two provisions, i.e., Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. and Section 17(A) of the PC Act, operate in different fields, but also approval and sanction in both cases are relatable to different stages of prosecution. Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is relatable to the pre-cognizance stage, and Section 17(A) of the PC Act is relatable to the stage of inquiry or investigation.

Therefore, in a case under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C., there are already materials available for the sanctioning authority to collect during the investigation so that it can apply its mind. However, in the case of Section 17(A) of the PC Act, what is available before the competent authority is the allegation and the official record reflecting the decision taken or recommendation made that is relatable to the alleged offence. Therefore, the standard of grant of sanction or approval shall be based on a fundamentally different footing.

"In view of the reasons discussed and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the present petition is devoid of any merit, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The interim order stands vacated, the High Court said.

Also Read: Assam: Charges framed against ex-DIG Rounak Ali Hazarika (sentinelassam.com)

Also Watch: