SHILLONG, Nov 18: Three days after Meghalaya Lokayukta Bhalang Dhar had dismissed a complaint against GK Iangrai in the alleged “vehicle scam” in the Police department, the complainant – Trinamool Congress national spokesperson Saket Gokhale – said he intends to file a review petition with the Lokayukta.
In a statement issued on Friday, Gokhale said the Lokayukta had set November 15 as the date of hearing for the maintainability of the complaint and despite multiple requests, he or the witnesses were not provided with a link to appear via video conferencing to record their statements.
“Appearance through video conferencing is a norm and is allowed even by the High Courts across the country and by the Supreme Court,” Gokhale said, adding the Meghalaya Lokayukta “shockingly” dismissed the complaint ex-parte without giving a chance to him and the witnesses to record their statements.
He had written a letter to the Lokayukta, pointing out that the complainant and witnesses must be given a chance to appear via video conferencing and exercise their right to record a statement. In response, the Lokayukta said the complaint was dismissed under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
“This is entirely wrong in law because Sec 249 of the CrPC states: When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.”
“It is clear, therefore, that the complaint may be dismissed in the absence of the complainant only when the offense is compoundable or non-cognizable…In fact, corruption is a serious cognizable offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act which prescribes that those convicted are punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 3 years but which may extend to 5 years,” Gokhale said.
Expressing shock that the Meghalaya Lokayukta invoked Section 249 of the CrPC in dismissing the complaint even though the “offense is clearly non-compoundable as well as cognizable”, he said he intends to file a review petition with the Lokayukta on the matter.
