STATE Vs. S.DURGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Central Bureau of Investigation filed this Criminal Original Petition challenging the impugned order dtd. 20/7/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.2453 of 2022 in C.C.No.6 of 2018 passed by the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the 1st respondent/A1 in C.C.No.6 of 2018 filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2453 of 2022 in C.C.No.6 of 2018 to direct the EPFO/New Delhi to produce the note order file pertaining to sanction order (Ex.P9). In this case, charge sheet filed by the petitioner against the 1st respondent and his family members arraying them as A1 to A6. The 1st respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-I, Zonal ACC Office, Bangalore, a public servant during the check period 1/1/2010 to 17/1/2016 acquired disproportionate assets intentionally aided and abetted by his wife, son, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister to the tune of Rs.4,28,50,092.00. During trial, witnesses examined and documents produced. PW5 is the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, New Delhi who authenticated the sanction order (Ex.P9) issued by the Chairman, Central Board of Trustees (CBT), Employees Provident Fund. PW5 examined on 15/3/2022 before the trial Court, at that time, he marked Employees' Provident Fund (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008 as Ex.P6 confirming that the appointing authority for the 1st respondent is the CBT. The delegation of authority to authenticate the orders of Chairman, CBT, dtd. 27/3/1996 marked as Ex.P7 and as per authentication, PW5 is the authorized officer. The Employees' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971 marked as Ex.P8. The sanction for prosecution order dtd. 23/1/2018 marked as Ex.P9. In the cross examination, PW5 confirmed sanction order was issued by the Chairman, CBT and he signed in each page of the sanction order (Ex.P9) following the circular Ex.P7. He further deposed not submitting any note order file to the Court. But confirmed based on the order of the CBT, he communicated the sanction order (Ex.P9). Further deposed that with the help of the office staff, prepared the sanction order (Ex.P9), based on the order of the Chairman, CBT. He further qualifies that the Chairman applied his mind in preparing the sanction order (Ex.P9). Further, with regard to one property in Statement-B and corresponding income in Statement-C, discrepancies questioned. Further, PW5 specifically denied the suggestion that the sanction order was issued without verifying the statements and also denied the suggestion of non-application of mind. At this stage, the 1st respondent filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2453 of 2022 in C.C.No.6 of 2018 to summon the note order file allowed by the trial Court by impugned order, dtd. 20/7/2022. Against which, the petitioner filed the present petition.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel/Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the petitioner submitted that RC.No.06(A)/2016/CBI/ACB/Chennai was registered on 25/2/2016 against the 1st respondent and his family members for offence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Disproportionate Assets Case). He further submitted that the 1st respondent, a public servant, that during the check period 1/1/2010 to 17/1/2016, acquired assets in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.4,28,50,092.00. After completion of investigation, on receipt of sanction order (Ex.P9), charge sheet filed before the trial Court against six persons viz., the 1st respondent/A1, Mathumathi/A2 wife of A1, Shyam Prasad son of A1, M.Malaikani/A4, M.Malika/A5 and Annal/A6. All the accused filed discharge petition before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3520 of 2018 in C.C.No.6 of 2018 and the trial Court by order dtd. 28/11/2018 allowed the discharge petition of A6 and dismissed the petition against others. Challenging the same, A2 filed revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.239 of 2019, finally A2 discharged form the case. Now, the trial is proceeding against A1, A3 to A5. In this case, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner examined as PW5, through him, the sanction order Ex.P9 marked. Thereafter, a petition filed seeking production of note order file pertaining to Ex.P9. The trial Court reproduced the averments and objections raised by the prosecution in the counter, but not considered the same in proper perspective and allowed the prayer of the 1st respondent.