RANCHI, India, Aug. 27 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 28:

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Cr. Revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed under Section 420 IPC in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2014 [T.R. No.64 of 2014 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No.769 of 2003 & G. R. Case No.3479 of 2003]. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed in appeal against which the instant Criminal Revision has been preferred.

2. As per the case of the complainant/ informant, it is alleged that the petitioner induced the O.P. No2 to get her employed in M/s Indian Oil Corporation on compassionate ground after the death of her husband. Her husband was serving as a permanent employee in M/s Indian Oil Corporation. On the said inducement, Rs.1 Lakh was taken, but the employment was not given to the complainant/ informant resulting in lodging the case.

3. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed only on the ground that the complainant was herself in pari delicto with the petitioner to obtain employment in a public sector corporation by paying illegal gratification. In this view of the matter, a Court of Law cannot be made a tool for recovery of such amount.

4. It is further argued that there is not a chit of paper filed to substantiate the plea that the said amount was paid to the Petitioner.

5. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The complainant and her son have stated that the amount was paid on a promise to get employment on compassionate ground. This part of the examination-in-chief has remained uncontroverted in the cross-examination.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the legal issue raised which needs to be answered is that if the money is advanced for an illegal purpose by the informant, whether criminal prosecution can be initiated with regard to it at his instance ?

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that, since both parties were in pari delicto, having mutually entered into an agreement designed to secure a public office through the payment of illegal gratification, the claim is not legally sustainable. A charge of criminal prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC may be maintainable only if the person deceived has suffered an unjust loss; it does not extend to situations where the complainant acted in concert to achieve an unlawful objective under the agreement. Courts of law cannot be used, directly or indirectly, as instruments to obtain a benefit from an agreement that is unlawful ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kuju Collieries Ltd. v. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. & Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 533, has held that where the parties, or even one of them, are aware that the agreement is unlawful and therefore void, no enforceable contract can arise therefrom.

8. Under the circumstance for the reasons above stated, the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

Criminal Revision is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.