DILIP RAY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Sec. 389(1) read with Sec. 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of applicant/appellant seeking suspension of order of conviction dtd. 6/10/2020, on the ground that the present applicant has to contest upcoming elections of Odisha Legislative Assembly, 2024.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that this case pertains to allocation of 105.153 hectares of non-nationalized, abandoned coal mining area in district Giridih, Jharkhand in favour of M/s. Castron Technologies Ltd. by 14th Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal, Government of India. It was the case of the prosecution that after the allegations of corruption came to be leveled against certain public servants, an examination on the allocation of various coal blocks to private companies was started by the Central Vigilance Commission. Thereafter, the Central Vigilance Commission had made a reference to Central Bureau of Investigation after finding sufficient material. The Central Bureau of Investigation had initially conducted certain preliminary enquiries in the matter.However, when sufficient incriminating material qua such allocation of coal blocks came on record during the course of enquiry warranting detailed investigation, then a number of regular cases were registered including the present case against company M/s CTL, company M/s CML, their directors and also against unknown public servants and private persons for the offences under Sec. 120-B/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, CBI had filed a final report under Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. against six accused persons including the present applicant Dilip Ray, who was the then Minister of State for Coal, for the offences under Sec. 120-B/420 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The present applicant was convicted by the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 6/10/2020 for offence punishable under Ss. 120B/409/420 of IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Actand was sentenced to undergo sentence of 3 years and payment of fine in Case bearing No.CBI/291/2019, arising out of FIR bearing RC No.221/2014 of 0002 dtd. 7/1/2014, registered with CBI, New Delhi.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant/appellant is seeking the relief qua suspension of order of conviction which was not pressed initially in view of listing of the appeal for final disposal vide order dtd. 27/10/2024. However, in view of the change in circumstances; i.e. non listing of captioned appeal for final disposal despite passage of more than three years and the impending National General Elections and Odisha State Assembly Elections wherein the applicant/appellant is aspiring to contest, the present application has been preferred. It is argued that the applicant/appellant, presently aged 71 years, is a distinguished public figure with a long-standing record of dedicated service to the state of Odisha and the nation at large. The political journey of the applicant began in 1985 when he was elected as the chairman of the then Rourkela Notified Council, showcasing his early commitment to public service, and this continued for more than a period of 35 years wherein the applicant had held various ministerial portfolios in the Government of India and the State Government of Odisha. It is further argued that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicant, and he will suffer irreversible and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner in the event he is denied the prayed relief. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant places reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 2 SCC 187, and other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject. It is further stated that the applicant has clean antecedents and he has never been convicted in any other case besides the one which is the subject matter of the present appeal. It is argued that the pending appeal deals with substantial legal and factual questions that warrant careful consideration of this Court. However, it is imperative that the appellant's future not be left in limbo solely due to the existing conviction. Thus, it is argued that it would be in the interest of justice to ensure that undue harm is not inflicted on the democratic process or the rights of the electorate while the process of hearing appeal unfolds, and the applicant is thus allowed to contest the upcoming elections by suspending his conviction in the present case.