NavNirman - Draft of Police Complaint for FIR against Vilasrao Deshmukh
Download Draft of Police Complaint in word format: http://tinyurl.com/ACBVilasrao
Download Supreme Court Judgment against Vilasrao, on which Complaint is based: http://tinyurl.com/SCDeshmukh
(These are also attached)
Dear Fellow Citizens,
We intend to file this before Anti-Corruption Bureau in the next couple of days. Please let us do this together – citizen-activists, NGOs etc -- as part of the ongoing anti-corruption campaign.
Our police complaint is copy-pasted below. Your views and suggestions are most welcome.
Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Draft of Police Complaint
Names of Complainants
Contact Address
Contact no. & Email
Date
To
Shri Hasan Gafoor,
Director General Anti Corruption Bureau,
Maharashtra State,
Madhu Industrial Estate,
1st Floor, Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.
(Ph: 24954826, 24921212 Ext. 201
Fax: 24985833)
Complaint to Anti-Corruption Bureau: Criminal Offences committed under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & also Sections of Indian Penal Code by:
· Former Chief Minister Shri Vilasrao Patil
· Shri Patil's Personal Secretary Shri Padwal
· Former District Collector of Buldhana
Sir,
The subject matter of this complaint are the corrupt and criminal actions committed by Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh, in 2006, in his capacity as Chief Minister of Maharashtra. In these acts, he was aided and abetted by his Personal Secretary Shri Padwal, and also by the District Collector of Buldhana District. We state that the actions performed by abovementioned individuals (hereinafter collectively referred as "the accused") attract many provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, including Sections 11 and 13, with accompanying penal provisions. They also attract several provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 119, 182, 217, 218 and 219.
The facts of the case are recorded in Supreme Court Judgment on the Appealarising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2614 of 2009 "State of Maharashtra & Ors.VersusSarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr" dated December 14, 2010(EXHIBIT 1). We are relying on this judgment as a strong documentary evidence of the wrongdoings of the accused.
Sir, please note that the Supreme Court judgment was not in the context of a criminal prosecution. The penalty of Rs 10 lakh imposed in the judgment was on the State Government as costs in the context of a wrongful appeal. This penalty was indirectly imposed on the taxpayers of Maharashtra.
This present complaint is being lodged by citizens of Maharashtra because SHRI VILASRAO DESHMUKH & HIS CO-ACCUSED HAVE NOT YET BEEN ACCUSED, CHARGESHEETED AND TRIED FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES OUTLINED IN THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT.
A. Facts of The Case:
(i) Point no. 9 on page nos. 40 and 41 of SC judgment:
"The facts of this case, as noticed in the judgment prepared by brother Justice Ganguly, show that with a view to frustrate the complaint made by respondent No. 1 who alleged that respondent No.2 - Gokulchand Sananda, his family members and some other money lenders were harassing him and other farmers and also to stall the action likely to be initiated by the concerned police authorities under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a member of the Legislative Assembly approached the Chief Minister for a special treatment. In the first place, the Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister made enquiries from the police station about the cases registered against Sananda. Thereafter, the Chief Minister, without verifying the truthfulness or otherwise of the assertion of Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda that false complaints were being lodged against his family members, issued instructions that complaint against the concerned M.L.A. and his family members should be first placed before the District Anti-Money Lending Committee, which should obtain legal opinion of the District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and take appropriate legal action. The camouflage of sophistry used by Shri Vilas Rao Deshmukh in the instructions given by him and the affidavit filed before this Court is clearly misleading. The message to the authorities was loud and clear i.e. they were not to take the complaints against Sananda family seriously and not to proceed against them. The District Magistrate, the District Superintendent of Police and officers subordinate to them were bound to comply with the same in their letter and spirit. They could disregard those instructions at their own peril and none of them was expected to do so. The District Anti-Money Lending Committee was constituted by the Government of Maharashtra vide resolution No. MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated 19th October, 2009 for protecting the farmers against unscrupulous money lenders and not for protecting the wrong doers, but in total disregard of the scheme of the Act, the Chief Minister gave instructions which had the effect of frustrating the object of the legislation enacted for protection of the farmers. The instructions given by the Chief Minister to District Collector, Buldhana were ex facie ultra vires the provisions of the Act which do not envisage any role of the Chief Minister in cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act and amounted to an unwanted interference with the functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act enacted for regulating, controlling transactions of money lending and protecting unsuspecting borrowers against oppression and harassment at the hands of unscrupulous money lenders."
(ii) The circumstances, seriousness of the crime and the individual roles of the three accused persons are outlined in point numbers 2-7 (pages 1 to 5):
"2. The facts of each case, which come up to this Court and especially those which are heard at length as appeals, have a message to convey. The message conveyed in this case is extremely shocking and it shocks the conscience of this Court about the manner in which the Constitutional functionaries behaved in the State of Maharashtra.
3. A writ petition was filed before Bombay High Court by Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan – the first respondent in this appeal. He described himself as an agriculturist by profession. The allegation in the writ petition is of illegal money lending against the second respondent to the extent of charging 10% interest per month on the money lent.
4. In view of such exorbitant interest being charged and the illegalities which are alleged be committed in the recovery of such loan, certain complaints were filed against the second respondent and in the writ petition it is stated that as many as 34 complaints were registered against the second respondent till 28.6.2006.
5. It was also averred in the writ petition that nearly 300 farmers have committed suicide in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra as victims of such illegal money lending business and the torture perpetrated in the recovery of such money. A complaint has been made that the farmers do not get the benefit of various packages announced by the Government and the State machinery is ruthless against the farmers. The cause of action for filing the writ petition is the order of Collector in the District of Buldhana (hereinafter "Collector") directing not to register any crime against Mr. Gokulchand Sananda, the second respondent herein, without obtaining clearance from the District Anti Money Lending Committee and also without obtaining legal opinion of the District Government Pleader. It appears that the said order was passed by the Collector in view of the instructions given to him by the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. It has been alleged in the petition that there are several complaints and the number of such complaints is about 50 against Sananda and his family members who are carrying on money lending business and the cases cannot be registered against them in view of the instructions given by the then Chief Minister.
6. In order to understand the seriousness of the situation, it will be appropriate in the fitness of things, to set out the order dated 5.6.2006 of the Collector, Buldhana to the District Superintendent of Police, Buldhana:
"To
District Superintendent of Police
Buldhana
Sub: Regarding complaints against illegal money lending against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda and his family members.
Ref: instructions given by Hon'ble Chief Minister in meeting dated 1.6.2006.
On the above mentioned subject, detailed discussion took place at the residence of Hon'ble Chief Minister on 1.6.2006. In the said meeting, MLA Dilipkumar Sananda complained that deliberately by raising false allegations, against his family members, complaints regarding illegal money lending are being filed and without scrutinizing truthfulness of the said complaints, offences are being registered. In respect of said grievance, Hon'ble Chief Minister has taken serious note and given order that 'if any such complaint is received then before registration of offence against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda and his family members, said matter/complaint be placed for decision before District Anti-Money Lending Committee and said Committee should obtain legal opinion of District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and take appropriate legal action accordingly'. You are informed that as per the instructions of Hon'ble Chief Minister, matters against Sananda family be handled as per the provisions of Money Lending Prevention Act."
7. It may be noticed that prior to the aforesaid discussion which the Collector had at the residence of the Chief Minister on 1.6.2006 in which meeting Mr. Dilipkumar Sananda, local MLA was present, something happened in the Police Station, Khamgaon City, District Buldhana on 31.5.2006. The said station diary shows that Mr. Padwal, P.S. to the Chief Minister telephoned twice to enquire about "the information regarding the offence" registered against Sananda and the Section under which the case has been registered. The second phone call as recorded in Station Diary shows that Mr. Padwal directed that no action should be taken as instructed by the Chief Minster and no offence should be registered."
(iii) After considering the State Government's submissions, the Supreme Court's views (point 20, page 13):
"20. Considering the entire matter in its proper perspective, this Court is of the view that the way interference was caused first from the office of the Chief Minister by his Private Secretary by two telephone calls on 31.5.2006 and the manner in which District Collector was summoned by the Chief Minister on the very next day i.e. 1.6.2006 for giving instructions to specially treat any complaints filed against M.L.A. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sananda and his family has no precedent either in law or in public administration."
In the context of the above-outlined crimes, many provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Indian Penal Code are applicable. These provisions are reproduced or paraphrased below.
B. Applicable Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act:
11.Public servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted.- Whoever, being a public servant, accepts for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for inadequate consideration, from any person concerned or likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted, or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in the person concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment of 6 months to 5 years and also fine.
12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11.- Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11, whether or not that offence is committed because of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment of 6 months to 5 years and also fine.
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit criminal misconduct.-
(d) if he .-
(iii) while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
(2) Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for 1 to 7 years, and also fine.
15. Punishment for attempt.- Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred to Section-13(1) (c) or (d) shall be punishable with imprisonment of upto 3 years and also fine.
C. Relevant Sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC):
119. Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent. --Whoever, being a public servant intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design.
if offence be committed.--shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;
182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.—Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant-
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
217. Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.-- Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.-- Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
219. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law.-- Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Sir, in view of the above mentioned facts, you are duty-bound to register an FIR immediately. We draw your attention to the following:
a) Section 154 (1) of CrPC and the Judgment of "Sandeep Shukla VS State of Maharashtra & Others", where a Full Bench of Mumbai High Court held that on receipt of information of cognizable offenses in normal cases, the Police are bound to immediately register the FIR, and in exceptional cases the Police could conduct a Preliminary enquiry within 2 days (EXHIBIT 2A)
b) Supreme Court remarks in "Lalita Kumari v/s State of UP and Ors." About duty of police to promptly register FIR. (EXHIBIT 2B)
c) Advocate General Goolam Vahanvaty's testimony in November 2010 before the Supreme Court (in the context of prosecution of Mr A Raja, Telecom Minister) that no prior sanction was needed from higher-ups for filing FIR, investigation and even filing chargesheet against a minister. Sanction is needed only at the stage of actually commencing prosecution, after framing of charges by the court.
As per the above directions of law, we urge you to immediately register an FIR against Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh and his two co-accused in this matter.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Names & Signatures of complainants)
Exhibits with the Complaint:
EXHIBIT 1: Supreme Court Judgment on the Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2614 of 2009 "State of Maharashtra & Ors.Versus Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr." http://tinyurl.com/SCDeshmukh
EXHIBIT 2: Bombay High Court and Supreme Court directions to police to register FIR immediately or, at the most, within 48 hours:
Bombay High Court's directives (Sandeep Rammilan Shukla V/s State of Maharashtra) http://tinyurl.com/HCFIR
Supreme Court Directions (Lalita Kumari v/s State of UP & Ors.)http://tinyurl.com/SCFIR
Related reading material for interested citizens:
1) Duty of Police to register FIR within 48 hour if cognizable offence is made out http://tinyurl.com/PoliceFIR
2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Bare Act): http://tinyurl.com/AntiCorruption1
3) Prevention of Corruption Act (Abridged & Simplified): http://tinyurl.com/AntiCorruption2
4) Indian Penal Code (IPC) Bare Act: http://tinyurl.com/IPCBareAct
5) Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – The basic rule book for cops:http://tinyurl.com/CrPCBareAct
Attachment(s) from Krishnaraj Rao
2 of 2 File(s)
No comments:
Post a Comment