The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected two regular bail applications filed by a retired OSD Excise Commissioner accused of corruption involving liquor price fixing and disproportionate assets. The court held the case involves serious economic offences.
Both M.Cr.C. No.1039/2021 and No.1075/2021 seeking regular bail were rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 27.7.2021 Order Delivered on 5-8-2021
MCRC No. 1039 of 2021
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 1075 of 2021
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C A V Order
2
Wing, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1) (b) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3
24.9.2019, the Station House Officer got the source information verified by the Inspector and thereafter Crime No.12/19 is registered. Allegation against present applicant in this crime is that between the year 2012 & 2017 present applicant while working as Officer on Special Duty had misused his office, entered into criminal conspiracy with liquor contractors and caused loss of Rs.1400 Crores to the State Government. While fixing sale price of country-made liquor for the year 2012-13, 2013-14, 60% profit on the lending price was provided to the liquor contractors / licensee and in the year 2014-15 & 2015-16, 50% profit was provided. For providing such profit, no reason has been assigned by present applicant in the files. Further, interpolation was made in files of proposal, it was not forwarded to the office of the then Minister In-charge and the decision was taken at the office level. It is present applicant who initiated proceedings for fixing of price of country-made and foreign liquor as provided under Niyam 16 & 17 of the Visthapan Niyam, 2002. By mentioning wrong proof liter in the boxes containing 180ml & 90 ml bottles as 6.75 in place of 6.48, benefited liquor contractors. Applicant has also brought into rounding off of prices by which also liquor contractors/licensees were benefited.
4
Act, 1988 (amended as Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018) and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code submitted report before the Superintendent of Police, State Economic Offences Wing Investigation Bureau & Anti Corruption Bureau Chhattisgarh, Raipur by Shri Vivek Sharma, Inspector to the effect that present applicant has earned asset disproportionate to his income from known sources. Based on this report, crime bearing No.14/19 under Section 13 (1) (b) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended as 'Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018') is registered against present applicant. The percentage of disproportionate asset to the known sources of income of present applicant was worked out by the Investigating Officer at 120.79%. Along with present applicant, who is a public servant, his family members by name Smt. Meena Singh (Wife), Shri Shailendra Singh (son); Shri Janendra Singh (son), Shri Dipendra Singh (son), Smt. Saraswati Singh (daughter-in-law), Smt. Shikha @ Puja Singh (daughter-inlaw) and Smt. Pankaj Singh (daughter-in-law) were also arrayed as accused in instant crime. Charge sheet in respect of Crime No.14/2019 was filed on 16.3.2020, whereas applicant was arrested on 19.11.2020.
M.Cr.C. No.1075/2021
5
would argue that applicant was holding post of Officer on Special Duty (OSD) after his retirement from service in the year 2009 and worked as such till December, 2018. The OSD has to work under the Excise Commissioner. All the proceedings drawn by present applicant in the note-sheets were to be forwarded to the Excise Commissioner, who in turn required to forward the same to the State Government as fixation of price of liquor is a policy decision which is to be taken every year. The decisions were to be taken at the end of the State Government based on the proposal made by applicant. He further submits that some documents are placed on record on behalf of applicant along with covering memo, which are note-sheets of the year 2013-14 prepared by present applicant, to show that after preparation of notesheets / proposals, the same were forwarded to the Excise Commissioner and also to the then Minister In-charge. Fixation of price is done mentioning profit specifically after approval of the Minister In-charge of the Department. He referred to the documents filed along with bail application and submitted that proposal was forwarded to the Minister Incharge and the note-sheets bear signature of the Minister Incharge. Allegation of interpolation is totally false and baseless, as recorded by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that only at one place figure is handwritten but that is also not after marking any figure which is already written therein. Referring to Section 161 CrPC statements of witnesses P.L.Sahu, Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Rahul Singh Baghel, he submits
6
that these witnesses have stated that it is present applicant who prepares note-sheet as proposal and the same is placed/ forwarded to the Excise Commissioner, who in turn forward to other higher authorities.
M.Cr.C. No.1039/2021
7
13 the profit added in price was upto 25 to 35% only, but suddenly the applicant on the basis of conspiracy with liquor contractors, had increased the profit ratio of liquor contractors upto 60% in the year 2013-14 and thereafter 50%. It is also argued that each box of 750 ml and 350 ml liquor bottle contains 6.75 proof liter of liquor. Likewise, each box of 180 ml & 90 ml bottle of liquor contains 6.48 proof liter of liquor, but present applicant has extended benefit to liquor contractors by mentioning 6.75 proof liter of liquor also in respect of boxes containing bottles of 180 ml & 90 ml. By this act the applicant has provided undue advantage and gain to liquor contractors / licensees. The liquor contractors were also granted illegal benefit by rounding off the price of liquor. Prior to 2012-13 there was no such mechanism/rule/policy of the State Government for rounding off the prices. In support of this contention, he referred to statements of Ravikant Jaiswal, Premlal Verma, Additional Commissioner (Excise) and Sanjeev Sharma recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. He further referred to statements of Gaya Prasad Sahu, Constable (Excise); Ratiram (Daftari Excise); Gokul Chandrakar (Retired Head Constable Excise), Nakchhed Sahu with respect to allegations in Crime No.14/2019. He submits that applicant has committed serious economic offences, estimated value of which is Rs.1400 Crores, hence he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. In support of his submissions, he places his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar
8
reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751 and Seniors Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari reported in (2019) 9 SCC 165.
Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
roshan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, a retired Excise Commissioner accused of causing huge loss to the state through collusion with liquor contractors, is a fit case for regular bail.
Whether the allegations regarding manipulation of liquor pricing and disproportionate assets justify refusing bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram vs. Enforcement DirectorateRelied on¶37
(2020) 3 SCC 791 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar vs. Amit KumarRelied on¶39
(2017) 13 SCC 751 · Who else cites this
Seniors Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin JohariRelied on¶41
(2019) 9 SCC 165 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Samund Ram Singh
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
