Guwahati: A complaint was filed with the Meghalaya Lokayukta by Saket Gokhale, National Spokesperson, Trinamool Congress for a probe into the vehicle scam at the Meghalaya Police HQ.
In the complaint, SF-10 Commandant G.K. Iangrai and former Meghalaya Director General of Police Rajkumar Chandranathan had been named as accused.
Gokhale said Meghalaya Lokayukta dismissed the complaint ex-parte without giving a chance to the complainant and the witnesses to record their statements.
The Meghalaya Lokayukta had set 15 November as the date of hearing for the
maintainability of the complaint.
Despite multiple requests, the Meghalaya Lokayukta did not provide the complainant or the witnesses with a link to appear via video conferencing and record their statements. Appearance through video conferencing is a norm and is allowed even by the High Courts across the country and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The complainant wrote a letter to the Meghalaya Lokayukta on 16 November pointing out that the complainant and witnesses MUST be given a chance to appear via video
conferencing and exercising their right to record a statement.
In response, the Meghalaya Lokayukta has claimed that the complaint was dismissed
under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
This is entirely wrong in law because here’s what Sec. 249 of the CrPC states:
Absence of complainant: When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint,
and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the
the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate
may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time
before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.
It is clear, therefore, that the complaint may be dismissed in the absence of accused
ONLY when the offence is compoundable or non-cognizable.
Corruption, as defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is neither a
compoundable nor a non-cognizable offence.
In fact, corruption is a serious cognizable offence which prescribes that those convicted are punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 3 years but which may extend to 5 years.
Moreover, SF-10 Commandant G.K. Iangrai has already been arrested for his alleged
involvement in the Meghalaya Police Vehicle Scam under cognizable charges of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Therefore, it is unfathomable and shocking as to how the Meghalaya Lokayukta invoked Sec. 249 of the CrPC in dismissing the complaint about the police vehicle scam when the offence is clearly non-compoundable as well as cognizable.
The complainant intends to file a review petition with the Lokayukta in this matter.
However, the action of the Meghalaya Lokayukta in not providing the complainant and
the witnesses a chance to depose via video conferencing and then invoking the CrPC
wrongly to dismiss the complaint is incredibly unfortunate and shocking.
Also read | Meghalaya: TMC’s Abhishek in Tura projects Mukul Sangma as CM candidate