P.M SINGH Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, I shall dispose of Crl.M.B.1584/2013 in Crl.A.986/2013, Crl.M.B.1650/2013 in Crl.A.1030/2013, Crl.M.B. 1651/2013 in Crl.A.No.1031/2013 and Crl.M.B.1649/2013 in Crl.A. 1029/2013 as the applications have been filed in respective appeals against a common judgment dated 23.07.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.07.2013 wherein the appellants were convicted for offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants were sentenced as under:-

(2.) The charge against the appellants are that they entered into a conspiracy with co-accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia, proprietor of M/s Centre Point, 13 K.G Marg, New Delhi and issued health licence to K.L.Bhatia by abusing their official position.

(3.) It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant P.M.Singh that the appellant was not the competent authority to grant the health licence hence there was no question of any misconduct or abuse of official authority. Admittedly, the competent authority was the Medical Officer of Health (MOH), who in fact granted the said permission vide his note dated 15.01.2003. When the appellant P.M.Singh did not even have the power to issue the health licence, the question of abuse of power did not arise, and hence the charges framed in this regard have not been proved against her. In any event, P.M.Singh received a detailed technical note dated 15.01.2003 written by the then Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Dr. Pal which was endorsed by the MOH, Dr. G.S.Thind. This note relied on the modified Master Plan of Delhi which clearly stated that the request of the applicant therein was justified and could be considered under the provisions of the modified Master Plan. Further the note of Dr. Thind very clearly records that the license has been renewed and the note was put up only for the information of the Chairperson. The note sheet received by the appellant dated 15.01.2003 was tampered with subsequently and the endorsement of the MOH contained significant interpolations hence there is no question of the appellant P.M.Singh having entered into any conspiracy with any other accused persons. The acts of the appellant on the basis of which charges have been framed were official acts and she should have been granted the benefit of Section 384 of NDMC Act, 1994.