The Bench at the outset stated that the argument on locus was denying the ‘existence of the obvious’, as the petitioners were all affected/victims.
“We cannot shy away from the fact that candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in the Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called 20 upon to render public service. It is needless to say that the quality of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore, the public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed by the appointees,” the Court said.
It called the original/de-facto complainant’s actions of questioning the locus as well as supporting the quashing complaint through a compromise memo, ‘deplorable‘, ‘shocking‘ and warranting ‘something more than mere condemnation‘.
As to the settlement, the Bench emphasised that the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant is not a compoundable one.
Citing multiple judgments of the top court, the Bench further observed,
“ … it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the 42 parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others“.
The High Court’s orders ‘affix a seal of approval’ on the alleged irregular appointments made, the apex court said.
It also came down upon the argument of the counsel towards no PC Act offences being made out, as well as the Investigating Officer (IO) leaving out the same in his final report, stating that for such events ‘the less said the better.‘
Given that the modus operandi by the accused had been detailed, the Court noted,
“We are constrained to say that even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the P.C. Act, out of the final report. The attempt of the I.O. appears to be of one, “willing to strike but afraid to wound” (the opposite of what Alexander Pope wrote in “Epistle to Dr.Arbuthnot”).“
Source: Barandbench
