New Delhi, April 30: Dismissing the revision petition of an organiser of the 2010 Commonwealth Games (CWG) in the national capital, the Delhi High Court observed that corruption is a silent killer in society, saying it was a serious economic issue that affects the country’s development.
At the end of the day, it is society and the downtrodden who bear the pangs of the corrupt acts of a few. If the court below finds that evidence against an accused is prima facie sufficient for framing of charge, then it has the jurisdiction to proceed with the same concerned accused must face trial, said the order dated April 29.
The bench was hearing the revision plea of V.K. Verma, the then DG of the CWG’s Organising Committee (OC), which sought the setting aside of a 2017 CBI court order for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
As per the FIR, Verma and other OC officials entered into a criminal conspiracy with Suresh Kumar Seenghal, Director of Premier Brands Pvt. Ltd (PBPL), with Chairman, Compact Disc India Ltd., and others.
It said that the officials extended undue favour to PBPL by appointing it as Official Master Licensee for Merchandising and Online and Retail Concessionaire for the Games against a minimum royalty amount of Rs 7.05 crore.
PBPL, however, after earning a huge amount from the CWG band properties, did not pay anything to the committee and the cheque amounting Rs 3.525 crore was dishonoured by the bank on instructions from PBPL, which caused pecuniary advantage to Seenghal and PBPL and corresponding loss to the government exchequer.
After detailed observations, the court said, the revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial.
The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below.
A perusal of the material on record shows that the petitioner herein was interested in bringing accused Seenghal and his company in the bidding process for the Merchandising and License programme and had raised frivolous objections to get the first request for proposal annulled.
Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case against the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
Accordingly, the plea has been dismissed by the court, saying the petitioner has utterly failed to point out what is causing a grave miscarriage of justice in the impugned order.
By the instant petition, rather than pointing out patent irregularities, the petitioner is asking the revisional court to critically examine and analyse the evidence on record which is a matter of trial and cannot be examined at this stage.
The petitioner has been unable to satisfy why this court should use its revisionary jurisdiction and quash the charges framed against the petitioner.