CRL.M.C.--4956/2017. Case: MAHMOOD ASAD MADANI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.M.C.--4956/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 11, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15.11.2019 Pronounced on: 11.12.2019 + CRL.M.C. 4956/2017 and CRL.M.A. Nos. 19667/2017, 32081/2019,
32082/2019 and 38518/2019
MAHMOOD ASAD MADANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Rohit Tomar, Mr. Neelmani, Mr. Niaz Farooqui & Ms. Mrinal, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with
Ms. Santwana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T
-
Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quash the FIR dated 12.06.2014 being No. RC-08 (A), 2014/CBI/ACIII/New Delhi and subsequent proceedings emanating out of the said pending for trial for the offences punishable under section 120-B read 420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act.
-
In the present case, FIR was registered on 12.06.2014 and on the sam day, CBI registered separate FIRs in identical cases of ex-Rajya members namely Mr.Brajesh Pathak and Mrs.Renu Bala Pradhan. But court vide order dated 11.04.2017 quash the proceedings against Mr.Brajesh Pathak in Crl.M.C. 1127/2015 and subsequent proceedings thereto.
order has attained finality. However, in the case of Mrs.Renu Bala this Court in Crl.M.C. 2251/2017 vide order dated 18.07.2017 directed Trial Court not to pass the order on charge. Till then, interim order said case is continued.
-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits per the declared guidelines of the respondent available on their www.cbi.nic clearly states that “CBI does not entertain pseudonymous complaints.”
-
Moreover, section 4(6) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, states as under:
"no action shall be taken on public interest disclosures by the competent authority if the disclosure does not indicate the identity of the Complainant or public servant making public interest disclosure or the identity of the Complainant or public servant is found incorrect or false."
-
In addition to the above, there are clearly defined CVC guidelines and Air India Vigilance guidelines which reiterate the said position anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints shall not be entertained.
-
It is further submitted that the allegations in the present FIR towards an overall loss to the exchequer to the tune of INR arising out of the alleged wrongful claims of TA/DA by the petitioner producing companion free tickets for reimbursement. The nine tickets alleged pertain to the period 14.02.2012-05.03.2012 immediately the last month of his retirement as Rajya Sabha Member.
-
Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted fact by the that the TA/DA claim format was not filled by the Petitioner and he has only signed the same which can be corroborated from the CFSL report. limited allegations are about the counter signatures only, whereas,
by the Respondent that the Petitioner like in the case of the other two MP's had no communication or correspondence in emails with the agent or with Air India.
-
However, each Rajya Sabha Member is entitled to various and amenities by virtue of their official position on a year basis. As
every Rajya Sabha Member is entitled to 34 free single air journeys in a year as well as unlimited number of Air Journeys for official work.
out of these 34 free air journeys, spouse or companion of a Member entitled to travel alone upto to a maximum of 8 air journeys in a year. relevant portion of the Rajya Sabha Handbook where the travel has been recorded is extracted herein:
"4.2 TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES FOR FORWARD AND RETURN JOURNEYS PERFORMED FOR ATTENDING OFFICIAL BUSINESS
(i) A Member is entitled to travelling allowances for every journey performed by him In India for attending a session of the House or a meeting of a Committee or for the purpose of attending to any other business connected with his duties as a Member from his usual place of residence to the place where the session or the meeting is held or the other business is to be transacted and for the return Journey from such place to his usual place of residence.
(ii) For the journeys performed by rail, an amount equal to one first class fare plus one second class fare for each such Journey, irrespective of the class in which the Member actually travels.
(iii) For the Journeys performed by air, an amount equal to one and one-fourth of the air fare for each such Journey.
.......
4.6 AIR JOURNEYS
(i) Every Member is entitled to 34 free single air Journeys in a year from any place in India to any other place in India for self or along with spouse or any number of companions or relatives. Out of this 34 free air Journeys, spouse or companion of a Member is entitled to travel alone upto to a maximum of 8 air Journeys a year to visit
such Member. However, where the number of Journeys performed by any Member by air in a year is less than 34, the balance number of Journeys not availed by him/her shall be carried forward to the following year. Air Journeys performed in excess of 34 in a year, subject, to a maximum of eight would be adjusted from the 34 air Journeys available for the next following year.
(ii) For the Journeys by air, a Member is entitled to travel in Executive/ Business class of any Airlines".
-
It is further submitted that over a period of six years as Rajya Member, the Petitioner was also a member cum office bearer of social, charitable, educational and religious organizations of national international level. He was having full liberty to utilize the available these cash surplus institutions for the stated objects of these and consequently was frequently travelling to various parts of the including overseas travel. He has further been invited by various institutions both in India and abroad and at times has been invited as a State guest His travel largely as Chief Guest / Moderator with boarding, lodging be arranged by the host and his office and in no way the petitioner involved in spending his time in travel and stay arrangements.
-
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has never booked a on his own, nor arranged his...
To continue reading
Request your trial