is it an offence..?
Viresh Kr Singh
(Querist) 12 October 2012
This query is : Resolved
Respected Sir/Madam,
1-Let X is secretary vigilance of any state govt
2-Let Y be the director vigilance of the same govt.
3- X has powers to permit the Y to trap any gazetted officer redhanded if Y seeks permission from X after getting some complaint.
4-On paper Y has asked to X to grant his permission to trap an officer but incidently ...the writings of the X and Y are same...and interestingly both writings belong to the senior officer X..that means a senior officer is writing to himself on behalf of his subordinate !!!
5- Is it an offence on the part of the secretary X?? Can he be dragged in to the court of law ?...In fact there are are so many other witnesses to prove the conspiracy on the part of senior level officers of the vigilance..the accused was granted bail..just on first hearing..the complain was of demand of bribe of Rs15,000// against payment of Rs20,000//
Please advice...the case is on trial..
Guest
(Expert) 12 October 2012
Of course, neither the Secretary nor Director Vigilance could assume to powers of the Special Police Establishment or the CBI to trap or arrest any officer supposed to be corrupt. They would have informed the SPE or the CBI to investigate the matter in the prescribed manner.
You can challenge their action and post a question in a court of law as to under which Conduct & Discopline rule or the section of any Act, they assumed such powers of the police/CBI.
Viresh Kr Singh
(Querist) 12 October 2012
To,
Expert Mr Sudhir Kumar Sahab,
If the arrest of the accused is success of the trap, it was done !...if you need to see the concerned document on which the writing of two officers are same , i am giving its web link: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/104049567/permission%20---2nd%20page%20%20-original.png
Iam providing Link to the bail order also:
https://www.box.com/s/6tjv9rgpflwkxwx25m7v
Viresh Kr Singh
(Querist) 12 October 2012
To, Mr P S Dhingra Sahab,
Thanks for taking part to resolve my query.
I need to clearify some more points to you.
As convention in the state govts, on receiving the complain of demand of bribe against any gazetted officer , the director vigilance seeks permission from the secretary vigilance to trap the officer.
Here, the point of concern is that hand writings of both officers are same and it is ( perhaps) done by the secretary , a more senior one to the director..that means he himself has written to himself on behalf of his subordinate and got the signature of the subordinate later on..
my point is that is it not an offence and indication of the conspiracy on the part of the secretary !
Guest
(Expert) 12 October 2012
If the initiating note has been prepared specifically by the Secretary himself and signed by his Director Vigilance, that clearly indicates bias and conspiracy on the part of the Secretary to frame the officer with clear malafide intention and the Director, if acted upon that is also a part of that conspiracy.
Conventions do not have any relevance as against the rules and procedures. The secretary or the Director can prepare note for approval, etc., for trap, but they cannot themselves make a trap, as the trap lies within the jurisdiction of the SPE/ anti-corruption wing of the State Police or the CBI in the corruption cases.
Viresh Kr Singh
(Querist) 12 October 2012
To, Mr P S Dhingra Sahab,
thanks again for prompt reply..but let me further inform you that the director vigilance heads anticurruption wing of the state..so he can initiate note to seek approval from the secretary . The trap was laid by a team headed by an inspector of the anticurruption wing ..on the order of the director vigilance..
one more important point is that the ' complain letter ( original ) submitted in the court bears no signature or remark by any official..it is simply unseen by any govt official..this is in contracdiction to other cases where trap orders initiate from the remarks on the complain letter only
and more astonishing fact is that this concerned notesheet which allows trap and beras doubtful signatures, is not submitted in original to the court...it is submitted in black and white xerox..where as other documents are submitted in original..
all this indicate the conspiracy..should i i request court to order for registering
FIR against the secretary & director... Please advice.
Guest
(Expert) 12 October 2012
Your cut=pieces of the incident being posted at different times are not appreciable.
I don't think you need an advice to the real problem being faced by you. Rather, I feel you want your own contenions to be dittoed by the experts, but without being made aware of the actual problem or detail of the incident.
You failed to provide the brief of the case at the first instance where you talked merely about same writing by the Secretary and the Director. Further, You did not give indication about the actual incident of trap even on asking by Shri Sudhir Kumar. Do you feel that the experts would presume what happened to you and what type of problem was there?
Still further, even in your subsequent post addressed to me, you did not make any mention as to who trapped you. You state merely about handwriting of both the officers. When I replied your post only then you have come forward with trap incident. Now you have raised another point of unsigned complaint.
Please note, if the officers have followed the prescribed procedure, handwring in the notesheet has no relevance unless the Secretary admits that his signature was was not there for approval.
You have not mentioned what your own advocate has opined on the points you raised? Normally anonymous compalints do not get attentiion, but if there are sufficient reasons to believe about the truthfulness the competent authority can initiate action on anonymous complaint also.
Also please note, your defence has no standing merely on trivial issues, if you were caught red-handed. If the raid was a success, you have to defend your case on solid grounds to show if there was any loophole in the process or the money was not recovered.
Viresh Kr Singh
(Querist) 12 October 2012
To,
Mr PS Dhingra Sahab,
I feel sorry about not mentioning the problem in detail..firstly..i thought experts may not spare so much time to go through whole story..secondly most of the details are in hindi..if you could spare your valuable time ..then definitely i will complie the most of the matter in english and will inform you on your mail...Mean while the bail order which will give quite good picture of the incident, is in english and its web link is
https://www.box.com/s/6tjv9rgpflwkxwx25m7v
please copy and pase it to the browser..and read it.Thank you very much.
Guest
(Expert) 12 October 2012
Dear Viresh,
By not providing the base, itself, you have tended to waste most of Sudhir's as well as my time in pursuing your supplementary posts. Why did you feel that experts would not require the basis of the problem?
Further, why do you feel that the experts would certainly prefer to waste further time to become member of the box.com or any other site, just for the sake of reading your documents? What interest of the experts are likely to be served by becoming members of several such sites?
Bail order can not be the conclusive proof for defence required for exoneration from the charge.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 October 2012
The following persons can be the under the Prevention of Corruption Act (including trap):-
(1). Inspector of CBI : In case of all employees of Central Govt/UT/local bodies of UT Deptts/PSU/Autonomous bodies. Such employees of State Govt Deptts/PSUs etc if the jurisdiction has been conferred by the notification of State Govt to the CBI
(2) DSP of State Vigilance Bureua : In respect of all employees of State/Central Govt/UT/local bodies of UT Deptts/PSU/Autonomous bodies
(3). DSP of Local Thana : In respect of all employees of State/Central Govt/UT/local bodies of UT Deptts/PSU/Autonomous bodies
(1)& (2) have to seek approval of the competent authority before registering the case.
Now coming to the substantive query:-
The trap is successful and it has to be defended during trial. In case you are able to establish some pre-trap conspiracy still it may not be much useful as such noting etc is administrative requirement. Law only has to see :-
(i) if the accused is public servant.
(ii) if there is sanction of prosecution with due application of mind.
(iii) if IO was of the requisite level.
(iv) if there was demand.
(v) whether demand was of something other than legal remuneration.
(vi) whether there was acceptance.
(vii) whether acceptance was before independent witnesses.
(viii) whether phenopthalene test has succeeded.
If you have a sharp advocate then he can use the facts narrated by you, to prove malafide if some more facts support the conspiracy theory.
However if forgery is there (although I could not see the papers referred to be you) then the same could be used to seek disciplinary action against the forger. For establishing criminal liability you have to prove what advantage he gained by the said forgary.
