Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 20, 2024, dismissed an appeal filed by the CBI against the discharge of the managing director of a company and another person in a case related to payment of bribery to a senior officer dealing with export, import and refund work with regard to customs duty in Ahmedabad in 2010.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found no error in the view taken by the high court when it discharged the respondent, Dilip Mulani, and another person.

"Except for the bald allegation of participation in the alleged conspiracy without giving any details of the conspiracy, the respondent has been roped in the charge sheet. His name did not appear in the First Information Report. Taking the material forming part of the charge sheet as true, it cannot be said that a prima facie case of involvement of the respondent was made out," the bench said.

In its argument, the CBI contended that at the time of framing of charge, the court is not expected to examine and assess the material placed before it in detail. It must examine the material only to ascertain whether a prima facie case of commission of offences alleged has been made out against the accused, the counsel for the CBI submitted.

They also submitted that the main allegation in the charge sheet against the respondent was of involvement in the conspiracy. When the amounts of Rs 3,50,000 and Rs 1,50,000, respectively, were paid to Anand Singh Mall, the officer, the respondent was the company's Managing Director. The amount was paid on behalf of the company, they told.

They argued that the high court should not have discarded the intercepted conversation at this stage. Thus, they claimed a prima facie case was made out to proceed against the respondent. 

The respondent, on the contrary, said that there was no reason to disturb a very well-reasoned decision of the high court, which considered all the relevant material on the record of the charge sheet. 

His counsel submitted that the high court had examined the charge sheet only to ascertain whether there was any prima facie case against the respondent and that it had not crossed the limit.

He also submitted that the respondent was not a party to any telephonic conversation with Mehul Jhaveri or any other accused. He pointed out that in the reply filed to the discharge application, the appellant (CBI) stated that the letters DM in the notebook maintained by Mehul Jhaveri referred to Dushyant Mulani, who was a co-accused and not to the respondent. The reference to DM appears in the same notebook against the entry of a sum of Rs 1,50,000 and the notebook does not contain entries made or maintained by the respondent, the counsel asserted.

Having perused the charge sheet and other material on record, the bench noted that the allegation was about payment of illegal gratification of Rs 58,000, Rs 3,50,000 and Rs 1,50,000 respectively, on behalf of the said company to officials of the customs department to procure benefits to its customers. 

"The charge sheet contains no allegation against the respondent to connect him with the payment. The allegations of being part of a criminal conspiracy are made against the respondent," the bench said.

As regards payment of illegal gratification of Rs 3,50,000 and Rs 1,50,000 respectively paid to Anand Singh Mall, in the charge sheet, the allegation against the respondent is that the respondent in conspiracy with Mehul Jhaveri abetted the offence of bribery and arranged for payment of illegal gratification of Rs 3,50,000 to Anand Singh Mall at Delhi through one Kishan Rajwar, who happens to be the respondent's nephew. Further allegation is that Mehul Jhaveri, in conspiracy with the respondent and one Dushyant Mulani, arranged to deliver illegal gratification of Rs 1,50,000 to Anand Singh Mall in Mumbai, the court noted.

"The prosecution is not relying upon any telephonic conversation between the respondent and any of the co-accused or the person to whom illegal gratification was allegedly paid," the bench said.

The court noted that the high court had elaborately dealt with the material.

"The High Court has examined the statements of the witnesses and documents which were a part of the charge sheet. The High Court has observed that in the diary entries made by accused no 1, the word “Dilipbhai” has been mentioned at the top. Against the entries of the amounts of Rs 3,50,000 and Rs 1,50,000, the letters DM have been mentioned. However, no witness stated that the letters DM meant the respondent, not Dushyant Mulani. In reply to the discharge application, the appellant admitted that letters DM refer to Dushyant Mulani and not the respondent," the bench said.

"We have perused the entries in the diary allegedly made by accused no 1. Though, on the top of the page, the name Shri Dilip Bhai appears, both the entries regarding the sum of Rs 3,50,000 and Rs1,50,000 refer to DM," the bench added.

The bench, accordingly, rejected the appeal, while making it clear that the observations made by the high court and the top court would remain confined only to the role ascribed to the respondent. 

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Dilip Mulani & Anr