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

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