J S BHATIA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of non-bailable warrants dated 8th March, 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI against the Petitioner in case FIR No. RC AC1 2011 A0001 under Sections 7/8/13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act) and 120B IPC.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the Director (Marketing) of M/s Bhatia International Limited. The said Company is engaged in the business of trading of imported and indigenous coal since 1979. In the year 2009 NALCO floated a tender for supply of 1,00,000 Mt of indigenous coal wherein M/s Bhatia International Limited was one of the bidders and was found to be L1. Similarly, in the year 2010 various tenders were floated by NALCO for supply of indigenous coal wherein M/s Bhatia International Limited was always a bidder and always cleared the tender in varying ratios. On 25th February 2011 on the basis of source information, abovementioned FIR was registered for causing undue favour to a private party by public servants through middleman against Shri Abhay Kumar Shrivastava, CMD, NALCO, Shri Bhushan Lal Bajaj, Smt. Anita Bajaj, Smt. Chandani Shrivastava, Mr. G.S. Bhatia, CMD, Bhatia Group of Industries and others. On 26th February, 2011 the accused nos. 1 to 4 in the FIR were arrested and produced before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and were remanded to police custody till 3rd March, 2011. During the course of investigation the police searched the office of M/s Bhatia International Limited, Indore and seized tender documents and purchase orders concerning supply of coal to NALCO. The Petitioner was summoned twice vide notices dated 5th March, 2011 and 7th March, 2011 by the CBI under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to appear on the 6th March, 2011 and 8th March, 2011 respectively before Mr. Ram Singh, DSP, CBI. The Petitioner, however, did not join the investigation. Thereafter, on 8th March, 2011 the CBI filed an application for issuance of non-bailable warrants in the said FIR against the Petitioner herein. This application was allowed by the learned Special Judge, CBI vide order dated 8th March, 2011. This order of the learned Special Judge, CBI is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the process of tender and the supplies to NALCO by M/s Bhatia International Limited through purchase orders was done in accordance with law and after following all conditions as stipulated in the tender documents no favour, whatsoever has been shown by NALCO to M/s Bhatia International Limited. Moreover the Petitioner is only an employee of M/s Bhatia International Ltd and has no role to play in the decision making process. It is further contended that the non-bailable warrants issued by the learned Special Judge, CBI against the Petitioner is without application of mind. Reliance is placed on Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 12 SCC 1to contend that the Courts have to be extremely careful before issuing the non-bailable warrants as the same involves interference with personal liberty. The only ground on the basis of which the impugned order is passed is that the name of the Petitioner has figured in the transcript placed on record before the learned Special Judge, when even the validity and genuineness of the said transcripts and its decoding is itself in doubt. It is further contended that the tapping of the telephonic conversation on the basis of which the non-bailable warrants have been issued against the Petitioner is itself illegal and bad in law. Reliance is placed on PUCL vs. Union of India, 1997 1 SCC 301and State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Shantilal Shah and others, 2008 13 SCC 5to contend that telephone tapping is a serious invasion of an individual's privacy and can be resorted to under 'occurrence of any public emergency' or 'in the interest of public safety'. Only violent crimes relate to public safety. Present case is an economic offence and though it may be a serious offence, it is not a heinous offence. Relying on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 1 SCC 694it is contended that the principles for issuance of non-bailable warrants have not been invoked by the learned Special Judge and it should have examined the entire record before allowing the application of the Respondent. The Courts are the bastion of individual liberty and an order curtailing an individual's liberty cannot be passed lightly. Hence the order issuing the non-bailable warrants against the Petitioner be quashed. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that he does not press the second prayer in the petition regarding stay of arrest.