Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1166 (GAU)

Jitul Deka v. State of Assam

2019-10-30

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJAI LAMBA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, J. Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior standing counsel, Government of Assam and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, CBI. 2. This petition filed in public interest by Sri Jitul Deka brings out a serious issue affecting abuse of beneficial schemes. 3. In a nutshell, it has been brought out that there are certain gangs operating in the State of Assam, who have an organised network, which also involves police personnel, Government officers including employees of medical record department, insurance agents, employees of various Insurance Companies, Doctors, Village Headman/Gaon Burah, Asha Workers serving under Primary Health Centre/Community Health Centre at rural level, Bank Officials, employees of Postal Department, etc. Such criminals collect data about persons who might have died one or two months back. These persons approach the family of the deceased and convince them that they are aware of certain schemes floated by the Government under which the family of the deceased will get monitory support for their livelihood. It has been pleaded that the family members of the deceased are asked by these criminals to provide Pan Card, Voter ID, etc., of the deceased. On the basis of those documents, bank accounts of the deceased are opened in connivance with bank officials who are part of the gang. Thereafter, they obtain insurance policies in the name of deceased in different Insurance Companies, including under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (for short, PMJJBY) in connivance with officials. It has been brought out that even the Post Master, etc, in the Postal Department are involved so that insurance policies and cheques, etc., can be collected through the said persons. In pursuance to the criminal intention, such persons after two or three months make claims for insurance on the basis of manufactured documents obtained in connivance with Doctors of the area, police personnel and other Government officials. It has been projected that the petitioner came to know of one such insurance claim involving embezzlement of Rs.50-75 Lakhs. 4. In Paragraph 9 of the petition, it has been pleaded that so as to unearth the said colossal corruption, the petitioner obtained copies of documents in respect of one deceased, namely, Nawab Ali @ Nowab Ali. It has been projected that the petitioner came to know of one such insurance claim involving embezzlement of Rs.50-75 Lakhs. 4. In Paragraph 9 of the petition, it has been pleaded that so as to unearth the said colossal corruption, the petitioner obtained copies of documents in respect of one deceased, namely, Nawab Ali @ Nowab Ali. An example has been given in regard to the deceased, namely, Nawab Ali @ Nowab Ali, and the entire modus operandi adopted by such criminals has been unearthed. It was shown on the basis of fabricated documents that the said Nawab Ali died on account of fall from electric post. Documents were prepared in regard to the deceased and his identification. The post-mortem report was fabricated. Body of the deceased was got identified. Criminal case was initiated. Final report was submitted. Subsequently, it transpired that one Akabbar Ali filed an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate stating inter alia that his brother Nawab Ali died on 24.08.2014, and not on 15.04.2014 as had been projected in the fabricated documents. The said Akabbar Ali asked for post-mortem examination report. A direction was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to furnish the same. It has been projected that multiple insurance claims were taken in regard to the alleged death of Nawab Ali @ Nowab Ali, who in fact died on 15.04.2014, however, was projected to have died on 24.08.2014. We are not going into the other details because it is a litigation in public interest. An example was given by the petitioner so as to show that the petition has been filed on valid grounds. 5. Sure enough, the investigating agency verified the facts and as narrated by the learned senior counsel for the respondent Shri D. Saikia, criminal proceedings have been initiated. Shri Saikia has pointed out that whichever case has come to the notice of the investigating agency in Barpeta District as well as in other districts, action has been taken. Even the Doctors and police officials, who are involved in manufacturing documents, have been taken in custody. Effective investigation has been conducted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that indeed action has been taken in regard to the specific instances given in the petition, however, such activities are prevalent all over the State of Assam, including in Guwahati. Even the Doctors and police officials, who are involved in manufacturing documents, have been taken in custody. Effective investigation has been conducted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that indeed action has been taken in regard to the specific instances given in the petition, however, such activities are prevalent all over the State of Assam, including in Guwahati. There is no mechanism evolved by the respondent State to unearth facts so that such activities of criminals can be stopped. The learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that money paid on such fraudulent grounds results in losses to the Insurance Companies and consequently the premium payable by ordinary citizens is enhanced. Consequently, every persons who takes insurance is adversely affected. It has also been projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that exchequer money is involved. Corruption is being promoted on account of inaction on the part of the respondents. 7. Learned senior standing counsel for the State has pointed out that in case no actionable evidence is brought to the notice of the relevant agencies, including police agencies, no action can possibly be taken. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has assured the Court that in case any actionable evidence or material is brought before the Superintendent of Police of a particular district, the said material/evidence shall be enquired into to verify whether cognizable offence has been committed or not. On such verification, if it is found that a cognizable offence has been committed, action will be taken strictly in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the investigation would be monitored by the concerned Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO). The Court has been assured that the investigation in such cases would be concluded at the earliest; and howsoever high the public servant involved in such nefarious activities be, would be proceeded against. 8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the public interest litigation with the following directions - (i) In case the petitioner or any other public spirited person brings to the notice of the Superintendent of Police of a particular district actionable evidence/material in regard to such insurance frauds, the Superintendent of Police concerned would ensure that an enquiry is conducted and concluded within 7(seven) days of receipt of that information so as to verify whether cognizable offence has been committed. (ii) In case it is found that cognizable offence has been committed, the Superintendent of Police shall ensure that First Information Report is registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and investigation is undertaken under Chapter XII of the said Code. The investigation would be conducted speedily and effectively and would be supervised/monitored by the SDPO in all such cases. (iii) We further direct that a Cell shall be created by Director General of Police, Assam to be manned by an Officer not below the rank of ADGP. All such cases registered in context of insurance claims would be reported to the said officer, who would take into account the overall picture in the State and ensure that the needful as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure is done. We provide 2(two) weeks time to the Director General of Police to ensure that the system, as directed above, is put in place. 9. The Court has been informed that after this public interest litigation was filed and it was unearthed that even police officers are involved in such criminal activities, the petitioner received threats. Some security has been provided to the petitioner. 10. We direct that the perception of threat to the petitioner would be evaluated on monthly basis and if required, the security would be continued.