Rajendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MCRC, 3139, 2603 of 2021, Judgment Date: Sep 28, 2021

Law laid down - 

1. Departmental inquiry and FIR/Criminal case based on same facts/incident – In every case, it cannot be said as a rule of thumb that exoneration in departmental enquiry on merits must result into setting aside of FIR. If it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the provision of the Act in the departmental inquiry, the continuance of trial of person concerned can be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. Departmental inquiry under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965 and provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C Act) – In the departmental inquiry, there was no scope and occasion for the departmental authority to examine the aspect of contravention of provision of the PC Act. Hence, their findings on the merits cannot be treated to be a finding relating to exoneration from the provision of the Act. Hence, FIR cannot be set aside.

3. Section 7-d (unamended) and section 20 of the P.C Act – The provisions are very wide. Section 20 creates legal presumption against the accused, which can be examined and gone into only by the criminal Court. There are cases where the complainant and Panch witnesses have turned hostile yet on the basis of statement of other witnesses, conviction was recorded. Thus, merely because the complainant and another witness, who entered the witness box in the departmental inquiry did not support the prosecution story, FIR and criminal case cannot be jettisoned.

4. Article 141 of the Constitution of India - Precedent – The decision of the Supreme Court must be understood by taking into account the factual context of the matter. The judgment of the Supreme Court should neither be read as a statute or Euclid's theorem.

5. Precedent – A little difference in facts, the additional fact or a different statute applicable in a particular case may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.

6. On merits – it cannot be said that possibility of petitioners conviction in the criminal case are totally bleak and hence interference is declined.

7. Practice and Procedure- It is the duty of the Courts to give effect to the existing laws wherever applicable and not to pass any order/judgment which runs contrary to law or negativates an existing binding statutory provision.

Rajendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of MP

Ishak Khan Vs. State of MP