Delhi govt's conduct inscrutable in embezzlement of public funds in MCD: Delhi court
A Delhi court has refused to put aside an order directing the Delhi Police to register a first information report (FIR) in the embezzlement of public funds in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) during 2017-2018.
The observations by the Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana were that the Delhi government was making an all out effort to oppose the complainant’s allegations.
The Court said that it pains it to observe that the conduct of the state in the case is intriguingly inscrutable.
The Court further said that it is not understanding as to why the state seems to be so averse to an effort to bring the skeletons behind the closet see the light of the day.
The court further said that the Additional Public Prosecutor was making all the efforts to negate the attempt of the trial court.
The order said that the state is trying to appoint a special public prosecutor to oppose the directions of the trial court which is really unfortunate.
The court, therefore, directed a senior police officer to ensure a fair probe while requesting the trial court to monitor the investigation into the allegations against senior public servants.
Case records showed that an audit committee investigated the allegations and found embezzlement of funds to the tune of Rs 97.64 lakh.
The amount in the fund was collected through fines levied with respect to the towing of cars, licensing fees, fine on street hawkers, etc, and was purportedly embezzled by MCD employees and not deposited in the State treasury.
“A crime is basically a wrong against the society and thus anybody could put the wheels of law in motion to seek redressal of society’s grievances. Moreover, the complainant herein being a public representative was not only empowered but was in fact duty bound to ensure that public money is not embezzled by public officials,” it explained.
Similarly, on the point of sanction prescribed under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of public servant, the court opined that the protection under the provision was ‘not a license available to the government servant to commit crime with impunity”.
The protection is available only in case if the offence alleged to have been committed is done by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, it added.