The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against four former Jet Airways employees, including three senior pilots, accused of paying illegal gratification to an Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) staff member to facilitate the withdrawal of their provident fund claims after the airline became defunct.
“The prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case against the four (4) Petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act and Section 120-B of the IPC (Indian Penal Code),” a single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav said while striking down the prosecution against the three pilots and a ground duty officer.
The court said the allegations and the material collected by the CBI during the investigation did not disclose the requisite criminal intention or any agreement between the petitioners to commit an illegal act and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The FIR was registered by the CBI in July 2013 after the EPFO found in an internal inquiry that one of its staff members, Machindra Bamne, had accepted illegal gratification from 13 Jet Airways employees, including the four petitioners, and the agency booked them under Sections 7 and 8 of the PC Act, and Section 120-B of the IPC.
After the CBI completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet against them, the four petitioners approached the High Court in 2024 seeking quashing of the case against them.
{{/usCountry}}After the CBI completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet against them, the four petitioners approached the High Court in 2024 seeking quashing of the case against them.
{{/usCountry}}They argued that Bamne’s number was shared by fellow Jet Airways employees who described him as a “private consultant” who helped them withdraw their accumulated PF. They said they had not met Bamne in person and had interacted with him only by phone and paid him without knowing that he was an EPFO employee to facilitate the withdrawal of their accumulated PF and therefore could not be said to have paid illegal gratification as contemplated under Section 8 of the PC Act.
The CBI, however, opposed the petitions, contending that there was evidence showing that each of the petitioners had transferred substantial funds to a joint account held by Bamne and his wife, and the timing of the transactions made it obvious that the money constituted illegal gratification for processing the PF claims.
Justice Jadhav, however, held that there was nothing to indicate that the petitioners knew that Bamne was an EPFO staff member. Besides, the judge said, Section 8 of the PC Act punishes paying illegal gratification for the improper performance of public duty or as a reward for such improper performance, and again, there was nothing to indicate that they had the requisite intention to pay such illegal gratification.
“The intention contemplated under Section 8 cannot be presumed merely from the fact of transfer of money. Such intention must be discernible from the material gathered during investigation,” the court said.
“In the present case, even if the bank transactions and the processing of the respective Provident Fund claims are accepted in their entirety, the material does not disclose the requisite intention on the part of the Petitioners to induce a public servant to improperly perform his official duties or to reward him for such improper performance. Similarly, there is no material indicating any agreement or meeting of minds amongst the Petitioners to commit an illegal act. The prosecution has essentially relied upon the existence of financial transactions and the common identity of the recipient. Such circumstances, without the necessary connecting material, cannot sustain the prosecution case for the offences alleged,” the court said