SHILLONG: In a significant judgment, the High Court of Meghalaya has ruled that any case of corruption in the armed forces should be handed over to CBI instead of being investigated by the forces themselves.
While hearing a writ petition moved by Dipak Chakrabarty, Subedar (B & R) Posted in Assam Rifles Construction and Maintenance Company, Laitkor, who has been charged under Assam Rifles Act 55 for committing offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Judge SR Sen said that Assam Rifles cannot invoke their power from Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and interfere in the case which falls within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As per the petitioner, a purported broadcast was aired in Malayalam Channel “Mathrubhumi News” and “Tehelka” on September 24 and 25, 2014 alleging corruption in Assam Rifles on the basis of alleged sting operation carried out by a black listed Assam Rifles contractor, C.C. Mathew in connivance with Shyju Marathumpilly of ‘Tehelka’ at Imphal, Shillong and Guwahati from August 4 to 12 in 2014, and a court of inquiry in this regard was ordered by the Headquarters DGAR.
However, in the court of inquiry, the complainant, Mathew did not appear, said the petition.
The petitioner Dipak Chakrabarty, who is serving in Assam Rifles, sought the intervention of the court after being aggrieved with the findings of the court of inquiry, summary of evidence and the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in General Assam Rifles Court.
As per the petition, the court of inquiry has been conducted in gross violation of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 and on the basis of serious procedural violations, non-examination of complainant and denial of opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, among others.
The petitioner has been charged under Assam Rifles Act 55 for committing offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is contradictory to the provisions of Rules 44/45 of Assam Rifles, the petition said. During the hearing, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner is serving in the Assam Rifles, charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against him.
He further contended that Assam Rifles has no jurisdiction or power to try the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. “So, the charge framed against the petitioner may be set aside,” the counsel said.
On the other hand, the Central Government Counsel for the respondents argued that Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 has to be read in conjunction with section 28 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, the counsel submitted that the language used in Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 is similar to Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and that the present petition may be dismissed.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties and after perusal of the charge sheet, Court examined Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006.
On perusal of Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, the Court said that it is understood that Section 55 has empowered the Assam Rifles to try the civil offences against any person subject to this Act, but nowhere is it is found that the Assam Rifles has the power to try the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
“We must not forget that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a special Act. Further, I have also perused Sections 25 and 28 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,” the Court order added.
Later, the Court said that the question that arises is even if it is assumed for the time being that Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 empowers the General Assam Rifles Court to try the present case, the procedure will definitely apply under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Criminal Procedural Court and Evidence Act, and others.
It was also apparent before the Court that the Central Government counsel has not been able to place on record whether the Assam Rifles Court or any officer therein has been empowered by notification in the Official Gazette as a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
“Therefore, the question to try the case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the General Assam Rifles Court does not arise which will be contrary to the provisions and purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that cannot be accepted, otherwise the letter and spirit of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Special Act) will collapse,” the order added.
The court also said that the Assam Rifles cannot invoke their power from Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and interfere in the case which falls within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court hence disposed of the case and set aside the charge sheet framed against the petitioner.
