Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Section 17-A not meant to shield corrupt officials: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The assertion came as Justice NS Shekhawat of the high court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a jail official, facing “serious charges” of allowing a gangster to use mobile phone and meet other hardened criminals, “who were successful in manufacturing spurious liquor, causing death of 20 innocent persons and leaving many seriously ill”
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that Section 17-A in the Prevention of Corruption Act on obtaining prior approval before investigating an alleged offense was not intended to shield public servants accused of hatching conspiracy with notorious criminals, gangsters and illicit liquor traders lodged in jail.

The assertion came as Justice NS Shekhawat of the high court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a jail official, facing “serious charges” of allowing a gangster to use mobile phone and meet other hardened criminals, “who were successful in manufacturing spurious liquor, causing death of 20 innocent persons and leaving many seriously ill”.

Justice Shekhawat asserted the incident “shattered the families of the deceased, causing them irreparable loss for their entire life due to consumption of spurious liquor by them”. The matter was placed before the bench after Som Nath Jagat filed a petition against the state of Haryana for anticipatory bail in a case registered at the Thanesar police station in Kurukshetra on April 26 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Prisons Act and IPC.

Advertisement

Justice Shekhawat added the object of inserting Section 17-A in the Prevention of Corruption Act was to protect honest public servant from the harassment by way of inquiry or investigation for decisions taken or acts done in bonafide purpose of their official functions or duties.

“The provision was aimed at protecting the honest and upright officers and was not intended to save and protect the public servants, who are accused of hatching a conspiracy with notorious criminals/gangsters/illicit liquor traders lodged in jail,” the bench asserted.

Advertisement

Justice Shekhawat also agreed with the state counsel’s contention that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation “would be eminently required to unravel the role vis-à-vis the modus operandi adopted, collection of illegal gratification, his association with other jail staff as well as senior official of Haryana prison’s department”.

Justice Shekhawat added the police during his custodial interrogation might become aware of “the entire racket prevalent inside the district jail, Kurukshetra, and the negotiations between the criminals and the jail officials”.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper