Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the FIR, chargesheet and consequential criminal proceedings against four former Jet Airways employees, including three pilots and a ground staff, who were charged with bribing an Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) officer to process their claims.Justice Milind Jadhav on Thursday said “prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case” against them under Section 8 (bribing of public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC Section 120 B (criminal conspiracy). He allowed petitions of Raman Sharma, Ashish Hingarh, Rishiraj Chawla and Paul Louis. The allegation and material collected during investigation “do not disclose the requisite criminal intention or any agreement between the petitioners to commit an illegal act.“EPFO vigilance’s complaint to CBI, ACB, Mumbai, said Machindra Bamne, a senior security assistant at its Kandivli office, demanded and received illegal gratification from PF claimants. Thirteen employees, including the petitioners, had allegedly transferred Rs 1.77 lakh to Bamne and his wife Rupali’s joint bank account. In July 2023, CBI registered an FIR. In April 2024, a CBI court issued process.The petitioners’ advocates, Haresh Jagtiani, Wesley Menezes and Viral Babar, said Bamne was recommended as a private consultant who could assist in processing PF claims. Their clients were unable to access their dues due to technical glitches on the EPFO portal. They had no knowledge of Bamne’s employment or his status as a public servant.While CBI’s advocate Kuldeep Patil said proximity of dates of transfers and processing of respective claims established nexus, Justice Jadhav said it was insufficient to establish requisite criminal intention. He also said mere payment of money to a person who happens to be a public servant would not by itself be sufficient to constitute a Section 8 offence, adding; “The prosecution must prima facie establish the requisite intention accompanying the payment.“Justice Jadhav noted significantly that prosecution material indicated Bamne concealed from EPFO administration he was operating a consultancy in his wife’s name. “This circumstance lends support” to the petitioners’ contention that they were dealing with a person they believed to be a private consultant. Bamne was also not the authority competent to approve release of PF amounts.The judge said several persons independently approaching the same consultant for assistance “cannot by itself establish a criminal conspiracy amongst them.” “Continuing of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law,” he concluded.
Discover more from updatview
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
