LTC Scam: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Madani, Imposes Costs OF 5 Lacs [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for corruption and criminal conspiracy against former Rajya Sabha MP Mahmood Asad Madani. The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kait held that the Petitioner had no mens rea to commit the crime of conspiracy under section 120B. Moreover, though access amount has been claimed but that is due to inadvertence on the part of P.A. of the petitioner, who did not do it with ill intention. CBI had named Madani in an LTC scam where he was alleged of causing a loss of Rs 5.75 lakh to the exchequer by submitting false claims. Madani had moved the present petition asking the court to quash the FIR and proceedings initiated against him for offences under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Petitioner submitted that as per the guidelines of CBI, the agency does not entertain anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints. Further, the same principle is enshrined under section 4 of Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014. It was also argued that there are clearly defined CVC guidelines and Air India Vigilance guidelines which reiterate the said position that anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints shall not be entertained. As the charges against the Petitioner pertained to irregularities regarding Travel Allowance given to him during his tenure as a Rajya Sabha MP, he defended his position by pointing out that he did not have any direct correspondence with Air India. He also submitted that there is a well-defined Audit system in the Rajya Sabha wherein both concurrent and statutory audit of the accounts takes place. This system issues notice to the minister concerned in case of any discrepancy in accounts. However, in the present case, no such notice was issued and directly an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner. CBI Counsel, on the other hand, argued that FIR has been registered on the basis of a reliable 'source information' which pertains to inputs where private/public individuals made complaints but do not want to reveal their identity. It was further argued by the agency that disclosure of the identity of the informant cannot be demanded even by the senior officers, of the officer to whom the information has been provided. The identity of such informant was never put in writing in any record. It is not even disclosed to the courts and no action is initiated by CBI on such information alone without subjecting them to discreet verification. Further, it is only after ensuring that a prima facie criminal case is made out, a case is registered and further action taken. CBI also went on to submit that the petitioner while being a public servant had claimed excess amount of Rs. 5,75,135/- against nine tickets during February-March 2012. He had claimed funds which were never spent by him and thus illegally benefitting himself by this excess amount putting the Govt. Exchequer to loss by the amount mentioned above. Relying on the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar, the court noted that the Petitioner was maintaining healthy balances in the Bank Accounts and was also drawing handsome tax free salary being the member of the Rajya Sabha and it is difficult to make an assumption that he had any intention to make such false TA/DA claims. It was also noted that the Special Judge erred in his decision as he has assumed criminal conspiracy as a matter of due course without appreciating that such an allegation has made in the Chargesheet and the FIR must be on cogent material which indicates an active involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the crime. Therefore, the court directed the Petitioner to deposit the access amount received, if already not deposited, within one week from the receipt of this order. The court also imposed costs in tune of Rs 5 lacs as due to the inadvertent act of the Petitioner, a government machinery was set in motion, which led to the wastage of valuable time.Click here to download the Judgment

LTC Scam: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Madani, Imposes Costs OF 5 Lacs [Read Judgment]

Karan Tripathi

Tags