Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 24 & 25—Transfers and postings of Public Prosecutors to various other Government departments—Legality—Exercise of powers of transfers and postings vested in the administrative head of any department is primarily and exclusively an administrative issue—Exercise of such administrative powers by virtue of Sections 24 and 25 of CrPC would not attract criminal culpability entailing such action to be punishable under Section 166 IPC—Such transfers are in fact related to the administrative work and the discharge of official duty of such office in the ordinary course of work—Public Prosecutors under the Directorate of Prosecutions cannot be interpreted or be construed to be “property” entrusted in the domain of Directorate of Prosecution—Transfers and postings even if thought to be arbitrary by the competent authority would not attract criminal consequences under Sections 166, 405 or Section 409 of IPC—An arbitrary act may not necessarily amount to a criminal offence punishable under Indian Penal Code—Criminal offences and criminal acts defined under the IPC or any other law are those offences for which a person can be held liable whether it be an act or an omission—A person can be held guilty or liable to punishment in accordance with the law as per the definition of offences described under IPC or any other law in force—No criminal offence made out in transfers and postings of the Public Prosecutors to various departments of Government of Delhi as they were made as per directions of the Competent Authority.
[Paras 14 & 17]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 405 & 409—Causing pecuniary loss to the Directorate of Prosecution by illegally purchasing biometric machines—Proof—Procurements have been made as per GFR rules through GEM Portal and as per the prescribed rules & regulations—Petitioner could not point out financial irregularities in the procurement process to constitute an offence under Sections 405 & 409 IPC wherein financial irregularity is the basic ingredient, which is not made out in the present case—Following the procurement process which concluded in the year 2017 on the representation of vendor, machines were returned to the vendor and no payment was made in consideration thereof—Since no pecuniary loss occasioned from the procurement process, consequently no offence is made out—Decision to procure Biometric machines might have been a questionable policy decision and might have been unnecessary to an extent, however, such a policy decision cannot attract or constitute a criminal offence—Propriety of any administrative decision, and its implementation in the discharge of official functions by the Competent Authority cannot be assessed or looked into by a criminal court by taking cognizance for commission of offences alleged under Sections 405 & 409 IPC and under Section 200 CrPC without there being allegations of financial irregularities, actual pecuniary loss or illegal gain—A mere imaginary loss cannot constitute an offence under Sections 405 and 409 IPC, neither can it be termed as a financial irregularity—Allegations in complaint do not constitute any criminal offence—Since the complaint of petitioner failed to disclose any offence from the facts set out under the complaint, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance in accordance with Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC and there was no occasion for the Magistrate to record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC—Petition dismissed. [General Financial Rules, 2017, Rule 149; Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978, Rule 4]
[Paras 18 to 20]