PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Tuesday ordered the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act to hear petitioner Kashinath Shetye on merits and quashed the court’s order dismissing Shetye’s plea for an FIR into a complaint of corruption he had filed against the EDC and for loss to the state exchequer.
Shetye, along with a few others, lodged a complaint in the matter alleging corruption, fraud, and cheating in connection with Gera Builders and the Economic Corporation of Goa, who they said were causing loss to the exchequer. The complaint was addressed to various authorities, including the Chief Secretary, Police Inspector of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Superintendent of Police, Director of Vigilance, Police Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Superintendent of Anti-Corruption Bureau, and Collector North Goa.
The complaint was lodged on 15/07/2019, providing details of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 120“B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 7 to 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with a prayer to register the offence and carry out the investigation.
Since there was no response to the complaint lodged, the applicant, along with others, approached the Special Court under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Various documents were enclosed, including the fact that the applicant approached the concerned authorities for the grant of sanction under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, the Court rejected the application for an FIR in the complaint.
The High Court was unimpressed by the Special Court’s abdication.
“The impugned order is clearly silent as to whether any case is made out for issuing directions; the matter needs to be remanded by quashing the impugned order so that the Special Court can consider whether the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out to exercise the powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, the Special Court has original jurisdiction and has the power of a Magistrate,” Single Judge bench B P Deshpande said.
“The revision stands allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Special Court to decide the application afresh,” the High Court ruled.
Shetye argued that the lower court’s order nowhere discusses whether there is any material disclosed in the complaint showing the existence of a cognisable offence so as to register the crime. He also argued that the Sessions Court, being a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, has original jurisdiction and can exercise the powers of the Magistrate, which includes the powers conferred under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
