J ALEXANDER Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed challenging the order dated 27-1-1999 passed by the Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, ordering for framing of charges against the petitioner (accused 1) in Special C. C. No. 134 of 1994 for the offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act (for short the 'pc Act' ).

(2.) THE facts as per the prosecution case necessary for consideration of the revision petition are as follows: During the relevant period the petitioner (accused 1) was the Additional Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner to the Government of Karnataka. Accused 2 (not a party in this petition) was the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and accused 3 to 6 (not parties in this petition) were alleged to be the conspirators and beneficiaries of the criminal conspiracy. According to the prosecution in the year 1992 accused 3 (V. Gokulkrishna) representing himself as the proprietor/director of M/s. Classik Computer Systems gave a representation dated 31-3-1992 to the Government for supply of Apple Macintosh Computer Systems in all 100 in number. The total cost of the system was 5. 27 crores including installation, software development charges and training programme. One of the terms was that 30% of the entire amount was to be paid as advance with firm order and the balance 70% of the amount was to be paid on delivery of the goods. According to the prosecution, this representation was given to the petitioner, the then Additional Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner, who along with accused 2, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, and accused 3 and his brother accused 6 entered into a criminal conspiracy by misusing the official capacity and going out of way accepted this offer of accused 3. It is alleged that, without verifying as to the viability and the requirement of the system and without consulting the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) or High Level Committee (HLC), the accused have managed to get approval of the Cabinet and, in fact, also have made hurried payment of Rs. 1. 58 crores to accused 3. It is to be mentioned here itself that in a Public Interest Litigation filed before this Court in writ Petition No. 21340 of 1992 the order of which was later affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 59 of 1993 in V. Gokulkrishna, director, Classik Computer Systems, Bangalore v M. C. Nanaiah and others, held that the action of the Government placing the order was unconstitutional and void so also the payment of money to accused 3 was violative of Article 267 (2) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Karnataka Contingency Fund Act, 1957, and, accordingly, this Court quashed the Government Order for the supply of the computers offered by accused 3 and his firm M/s. Classik Computer Systems. It is to be noted that after passing of the order in the writ petition on 3-12-1992 Sri j. C. Lynn, the then Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, vide his letter dated 19-3-1993 lodged the First Information before the superintendent of Police (CBI), New Delhi, seeking investigation and taking action in this regard. The CBI took up initial investigation and filed its First Information Report on 4-3-1993 initially against 3 persons, viz. , the petitioner herein (accused 1), Sri S. Bangarappa (the then Chief minister-accused 2) and Sri V. Gokulkrishna (Director of M/s. Classik computer Systems-accused 3) for the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (l) (d)and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This FIR was registered in Crime No. RC-l (A)/93/acu (IV) and further investigation was taken up. During the investigation, the CBI examined several witnesses and seized hundreds of documents. On completion of the investigation, the cbi filed the charge-sheet against 6 persons including the petitioner, who is shown as accused 1. On the basis of the charge-sheet and the material collected during the investigation the learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process against all the accused. On appearance and at the stage of framing of charge, the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no material let alone prima facie material to show any role played by the petitioner in the alleged commission of the crime of either committing criminal misconduct or the offence of entering into a criminal conspiracy to commit the said criminal misconduct and as such submitted that as no charge can be framed against him prayed for discharge. This prayer was opposed by the learned Counsel appeared for the CBI on various grounds. After considering the rival contentions, by the impugned order dated 27-1-1999 the learned Special Judge held that there are reasonable grounds to frame charges against all the accused including the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the PC act as well as independent charge for the offence under Section 13 (l) (d)and 13 (2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge on 3-2-1999 framed the charges. Challenging the same the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision petition.

(3.) SRI C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that, no doubt, during the relevant period the petitioner was working as Additional Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner and he had received the proposal of accused 3 regarding supply of the computers. But, as per the official norms and procedure, on receipt of the same he has put up the same before the Chief Minister (accused 2) for consideration and in turn the matter was placed before the Cabinet and after due consideration the Cabinet gave its approval. These facts by themselves, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not constitute any offence of criminal misconduct as defined under the PC Act nor is there any material to show that the petitioner has entered into a criminal conspiracy with any of the accused to commit any offence. As such framing of charge was not proper.