Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, May 4, 2024

Corruption A Termite And Root Cause Of All Problems Like Poverty, Inequality, Illiteracy, Social Unrest Etc: Allahabad HC

Posted in: Political
Tue, Mar 8, 22, 16:44, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4409
Dr Rajeev Gupta M.D. v. U.P. that it is like a termite in every system and once it enters the system, it keeps on getting bigger and bigger.

While taking potshots at the increasing and stinking level of corruption in our country and in our society, the single Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Krishan Pahal has as recently as February 25, 2022 in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Dr Rajeev Gupta M.D. v. State of U.P. Thru. Sp Cbi/Acb Naval Kishore in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 89 and in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 299 of 2022 made significant observations on the growing menace of corruption in society. It observed that it is like a termite in every system and once it enters the system, it keeps on getting bigger and bigger. Most commendably, the Bench observes in para 25 that:
Corruption is a termite in every system. Once it enters the system, it goes on increasing. Today, it is rampant and has become a routine. Corruption is root cause of all the problems, such as poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, pollution, external threats, underdevelopment, inequality, social unrest. The menace has to be put to account. The offence is against the society. The Court has to balance the fundamental rights of the accused to the legitimate concerns of the society at large vis-à-vis the investigating agency. Hon’ble Justice Krishna Pahal averred thus while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Dr Rajeev Gupta MD, who has been arraigned as an accused in a corruption case.

To start with, the Bench first and foremost in para 2 of this notable judgment observes that:
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.690 of 2021, Crime No. RC0062019A0008, under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC, Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

While elaborating on the facts, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that:
The present case has been registered on the basis of a written complaint by Shri Anmol Sachan, PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow, dated 23/05/2019 against Dr. Sunita Gupta, the then Sr. D.M.O., Northern Railway (N.R.), Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow and her husband Dr. Rajeev Gupta, Professor, KGMU, Lucknow, U/s 109 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988. It is alleged in the complaint that Dr. Sunita Gupta, the then Sr. D.M.O., Northern Railways, Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow was in possession of disproportionate assets to her known sources of income to the tune of Rs 1,80,96,585.33 during the period 01/01/2009 to 12/07/2016, which she can not satisfactorily account for. Dr. Rajeev Gupta husband of Dr. Sunita Gupta also abetted the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by Dr. Sunita Gupta.

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then enunciates in para 4 that, The investigation revealed that Dr. Sunita Gupta was posted as Sr. D.M.O., N.R., Division Hospital, Lucknow up to October, 2015. She was transferred to Modern Coach Factory, Rae Bareli in same capacity wherein she joined on 16/11/2015 in compliance of Order No. 940E/1A/Medical Officer, dated 05/11/2015, DRM, Lucknow. Since then she is serving in MCF, Rae Bareli and staying in the Guest House of MCF, Rae Bareli. Occasionally, she comes to Lucknow. Dr. Sunita Gupta retained Government Accommodation allotted to her at Lucknow, with due permission from competent authority. While Dr. Sunita Gupta resided in Rae Bareli, her husband Dr. Rajeev Gupta resided in her official residence at Type IV-24, Church Road, Railway Colony Lucknow.

Furthermore, the Bench then points out in para 5 that:
During investigation of RC/006/2016/A/002, by Shri Anmol Sachan, searches were conducted by Sh Sandeep Pandey. PI/CBI/ACB/Lko in presence of the CBI Team & independent witnesses at official residential premises of Dr. Sunita Gupta at IV-24, Church Road, Railway Colony, near Fatehli Chauraha, Charbagh, Lucknow on 12/07/2016. At the time of searches. Dr. Sunita Gupta was posted at Rae Bareli. Her husband Dr. Rajeev Gupta was present in the official residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta at Lucknow.

Going ahead, the Bench then mentions in para 6 that:
During the course of house search, a Search List was prepared vide which total six items including documents and cash was seized. Two Steel Almirah were kept in the Drawing Room which were opened with the keys provided by Dr. Rajeev Gupta. The Almirah contained huge currency notes. Total Rs 1,59,00,000/ were found in the Almirah. Enquiry was made from Dr. Rajeev Gupta about the source of money. He took the plea that the said cash has been earned by him through private practice. The plea taken by Dr. Rajeev Gupta was not found satisfactory. Hence, the said amount was seized. In addition to Rs 1,59,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 70,700/- was also found in the Steel Almirah, which was left for their day to day expenditure. During searches various documents pertaining to investments by Dr. Sunita Gupta and Dr. Rajeev Gupta were found and seized vide Search List, dated 12/07/2016 by Sh Sandeep Pandey, the then PI/CBI/ACB/Lko i.e. List of Insurance Policies & FDs, List of NSC/KVP, List of SB A/c detail and PPF A/c, Currency Notes Rs 1.59,00,000/ seized vide Details of Currency Notes. In the said house of the wife of the applicant, the house hold items/articles a separate Inventory Memo was prepared, annexed with the search list. In the Inventory Memo details i.e. date, time, cost of requisition, mode of acquisition and details of items/articles was noted. During the house search of Dr. Sunita Gupta, a locker key of Locker No 203C, Central Bank of India, Alambagh Branch, Lucknow was seized and the said locker was operated by Sh Atul Dikshit, PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow, in the presence of Dr. Sunita Gupta and independent witnesses and vide Bank Locker Operation Cum Seizure Memo, dated 12/07/2019 amount of Rs. 9,43,000/- was seized from the said locker. The I.O. of the present case seized relevant documents. recovered cash amount from Shri Anmol Sachan vide Handing Over/Taking Over taking Memo dated 10/06/2019.

Be it noted, the Bench then discloses in para 7 that:
The pay details of Dr. Sunita Gupta and Dr. Rajeev Gupta, for the check period were collected and relevant witnesses examined to prove their income Further, Sh Sandeep Pandey, PI/CBI/ACB/Lko and his CBI team including independent witnesses to the search conducted on the official residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta were examined and they proved the Search List along with Inventory Memo dated 12/07/2016. Dr. Rajeev Gupta was present during the searches and was provided a copy of Search List dated 12/07/2016. They corroborated the seizure of Rs 1.59 crore from the official residential premises of Dr. Sunita Gupta on 12/07/2016 along with other seized documents.

As we see, the Bench then remarks in para 8 that:
During investigation, the I.O. collected the records from various banks pertaining to accounts maintained by Dr. Sunita Gupta & Dr. Rajeev Gupta and examined relevant witnesses for ascertaining balance at the start of the check period and at the end of the check period. The I.O. also calculated the interest received in the account and balance in the account at the end of check period.

Simply stated, the Bench then states in para 9 that:
The I.O. collected the records from School, Colleges to prove the expenditures incurred by Dr. Rajeev Gupta & Dr. Sunita Gupta and recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses. The I.O. collected the records from Post Offices to give the due benefit to accused regarding their income during the check period. The I.O. also collected the records from Post Offices to prove investments in the name of Dr. Rajeev Gupta & Dr. Sunita Gupta during the check period and recorded the statement of relevant witnesses.

Going forward, the Bench then mentions in para 10 that:
On 12/07/2019, the CBI team in presence of independent witnesses had found & seized currency notes amounting Rs 1.59 crore from official residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta. At the time of searches, Dr. Sunita Gupta was posted at Rae Bareli and not present in the house. The currency notes were kept in different shelves of almirah. A large number of envelopes of different shape, size & colour were found in the almirah. The envelopes were opened & inside the envelopes currency notes of different denominations were found tied with rubber bands. On the envelopes some details regarding cash in the envelope was mentioned. All the currency notes were taken out from a large number of different envelopes. Denomination wise the currency notes were segregated, counted with the help of Currency Note Counting Machine. Thereafter, denomination wise bundles were made & seized. The envelopes/paper slips, rubber band were not seized, as the same were not required. Dr. Rajeev Gupta had claimed that every envelope (inside which the currency notes were wrapped with rubber band) had the paper slip containing details of the patient name along with the amount received by the individual patient and that the CBI team took the cash from the envelopes and taken the envelopes with slip and left rubber bands. However, the CBI team stated that only Rs. 1.59 crore cash was seized and no such slip or envelope was taken/seized by them. Hence, accused Dr. Rajeev Gupta was having all the opportunity to keep the said envelops, paper slips with himself in safe custody so that he might produce the same as documentary evidence in his defence, as he has claimed that the said envelope/paper slip were having details of patients and amounts received by him through private practice. This shows that the said envelopes/paper slips were not having any information/details of patients/amount as claimed by Dr. Rajeev Gupta.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench brings out in para 15 that:
The applicant or any other person (Doctors/Hospital Owners) summoned/examined during the investigation could not produce any valid documentary evidence in support of their statement or explanation offered by applicant that the total amount of Rs. 1.59 crore seized from the official residence of Dr. Sunita Gupta on 12/07/2016 was actually earned by applicant by indulging in private practice, after office hours.

Most remarkably, the Bench then stipulates in para 24 that:
The medical practitioner administer an oath at the time of convocation as provided by Indian Medical Association which is an extension of Hippocratic oath taken the world over. The oath is not merely a formality. It has to be observed and followed in letter and spirit. It is on these lines that the apex medical education regulator, National Medical Commission has suggested that the Hippocratic oath be replaced by ‘CHARAK SHAPATH’ during the convocation ceremony for graduates in medical services. The medical and legal fields are more a service than a profession especially the stream of oncology which deals with life and death.

Most significantly, what forms the real crown of this learned judgment is then summed up best in para 25 wherein it is postulated that:
Corruption is a termite in every system. Once it enters the system, it goes on increasing. Today, it is rampant and has become a routine. Corruption is root cause of all the problems, such as poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, pollution, external threats, underdevelopment, inequality, social unrest. The menace has to be put to account. The offence is against the society. The Court has to balance the fundamental rights of the accused to the legitimate concerns of the society at large vis-à-vis the investigating agency.

In addition, the Bench then holds in para 26 that:
The task of the Court is manifold. Firstly, it has to ensure that there is no unwarranted misuse or abuse of process to encroach upon life and liberty of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Secondly, it has to be seen that the Rule of law is followed and the administration of justice is not hampered, the guilty is brought to book.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 27 that:
In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

In conclusion, the single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Krishan Pahal of Allahabad High Court deserves all the praise on earth for speaking out so vocally against corruption and in ensuring that the rule of law is always followed as is quite ostensible also in this noteworthy case! Of course, all the citizens of India including myself must always certainly pay heed to what Justice Krishan Pahal has held so clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Najma vs Govt of NCT of Delhi a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a CM is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise.
It goes without saying that the population of India is increasing very rapidly which is a cause of grave concern
Madhav Sathe v Maharashtra a plea filed by two politician-applicants seeking quashing of a conviction order on the ground that they had settled the dispute with the victim-complainant.
Talibanis are entering in one go from Pakistan to Afghanistan to occupy it and massacre whoever comes in their way with full help, active support both moral and material with latest weapons
The purpose of this proposed law is to tackle the growing population in the State and so ensuring judicious and equal availability of all the resources in the State through a two-child policy.
Susmita Saha Dutta v/s UOI has outrightly rejected State Government's argument that police can't be held responsible for post-poll violence due to Election Commission of India's (ECI's) Model Code of Conduct.
Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar, Etc vs Maharashtra the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently.
Hindus are the most tolerant of all the religions in the world. I am a Muslim but I will never shy away from saying that Muslims must learn tolerance from Hindus
Nine of our soldiers died in J&K and India will be playing T20 match with Pakistan on October 24? Do the lives of our soldiers carry no value?
o one can dare do what Congress can dare do in India. The biggest, bluntest and the boldest truth to prove my inevitable point lies in the irrefutable fact that it was the Congress party under the dynamic
West Bengal vs Suvendu Adhikari refused to interfere with an order of a Single Bench wherein criminal proceedings initiated against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari who secured maximum limelight after he defeated Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram by a convincing margin had been stayed.
Hasratullah Shervani v/s UP From perusal of the injury report, it prima facie supports the contents of first information report, therefore, in above circumstances and that the injured has turned hostile is of no consequence.
Lawyers Voice vs Punjabthere is a blame game between the State and Central Government as to who is responsible for such lapses.
High Court Bench must be created in West UP at Meerut even though his most commendable recommendation was not implemented in UPA's regime
Ashish Shelar v/s Maharashtra Legislative Assembly that the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Assembly for a full year is prima facie unconstitutional and worse than expulsion as the constituency is remaining unrepresented.
dogged the limelight for quite some time over the wearing of hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka was most unfortunate.
hat had happened so brazenly with Muskan Khan even though she is a Muslim and I am a Hindu as there was no justification to haul her up in the manner
March a woman was shown offering namaz in a class in Sagar University
Shahida vs UP that tolerance, respect for all communities is essential to keep country united.
Madrasa-e-Anware Rabbani Waqf Committee v/s Surat Municipal Corporation on the ground that the construction was without prior permission of the competent authority.
Brinda Karat v. State of NCT of Delhi that: Hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos, and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution
she was squarely blamed single handedly for the terror acts that were perpetrated in Udaipur, Kanpur and other parts of the country.
had lashed out most severely at Nupur Sharma for being single handedly responsible for putting the entire nation on fire which drew scathing criticism
Kamini Arya Through Perokar vs NCT Of Delhi has taken suo motu cognizance to facilitate admission of an 8 year old child to school which could not be facilitated for the reason that her parents were in judicial custody in a murder case since July 2021.
Parvez Parwaz vs Uttar Pradesh dismissed a plea challenging denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007
Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs Election Commission of Indiathat the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain, dismissed the plea made by Delhi Health Minister challenging the trial court order transferring his money laundering case to another Judge.
Umar Khalid that the attack on police personnel during the 2020 North East Delhi riots by women protestors prima facie be covered by the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
United we stand and divided we fall! They also gloss over what Deanswift had once very famously
why Lord Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is not the official father of the nation?
Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India dismissed a PIL praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the ‘mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party’.
Kapil Sibal himself says on record about Rahul Gandhi’s conviction that both the process and the outcome of the 2019 case are bizarre.
Mamata Banerjee is an Indian politician and the current Chief Minister of West Bengal. She was born on January 5, 1955, in Kolkata, West Bengal. Mamata Banerjee completed her education from Jogamaya Devi College and the University of Calcutta.
Shri Potsangbam Jaminikanta Singh v/s Manipur directed the State government to decongest the traffic on national highway in front of the Old Manipur Secretariat by making arrangements for proper parking of vehicles on both sides.
Shamim vs UP that it is a clear case of false implication due to political rivalry and property dispute. The Court also held that there is no material evidence to substantiate the prosecution case.
In my life, I definitely cannot ever even dare dream of a more bigger insult of legendary Prabhu Shri Ram
Top