EXTENT OF FALSE COMPLAINTS IN CORRUPTION CASES

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

Section 9(2) of the newly passed Delhi Janlokpal Bill,2015 provides that ”Every person who willfully or maliciously makes any false complaint under this Act, shall, on
conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.”
Even Arvind Kejriwal is narrow-sighted as to the extent of false complaints in corruption cases.As a matter of fact,no complaint of corruption against Public Servant is false provided that-
1.The Public Servant is not a whistle blower against corruption or any misdeeds of Govt Mechanism.
2.There was no political or higher bureaucratic hand in making complaint by a third person.
A common man working without any political or bureaucratic hand and making complaint against such public servant who is not a whistle blower can never make false complaint.
There are fundamental factual differences in between cases like Murder,Rape etc and Corruption Cases,except cases of gratification or bribery.
When a person gets documentary evidences through RTI Act,2005 or otherwise,then he makes complaint against corruption.He draws a conclusion as to the suspicion of corruption on the basis of documents obtained by him,then he makes complaint. His conclusion is based on documents,so there remains no possibility to make willfully or maliciously any false complaint.
The conclusion drawn by a person can be wrong due to not being well understood by him or due to not being well acquainted with the other facts.But his conclusion drawn on basis of documents is as such that prima facie there is reason to suspect the commission of corruption. If there is reason to suspect the commission of corruption, then complaint can be made.His suspicion is true or false is another matter and if his suspicion becomes false,then also he can’t be made liable for imprisonment or fine or both.
It can’t be ignored that even a Lokpal can intentionally prove a true complaint false and subject complainant to punishment.
On the other hand,in cases of murder,rape etc,an informant or witness can wilfully or maliciously falsely state that he/she has seen such crime,but these crimes are not instituted on the basis of documents suspecting involvement of a particular person.
I concur with the opinion of Hon’ble Dr Umapathy BE Sir,Retired DGP of Karnataka,what he expressed in the course of making comment in response of my comment on facebook,that there must be provisions of harsh punishment against complainant for making false complaints against upright public servants like provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 which provides harsh punishment for making false complaints against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
But,if two conditions are fulfilled that the concerned public servant against whom complaint was proved false was a whistle blower against corruption or misdeeds of Govt Mechanism and there was political or higher bureaucratic hand behind making complaint,only then any punishment against complainant be awarded and of course it should be harsh.
LikeCommentShare
You, Prince Kumar, Ankit Dev Arpan, Om Saini and 4 others like this.
1 comment
1 share
Comments

Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE Rahul Kumar
I am indeed grateful for you to have included my opinion, regarding draconian provisions, inserted in Atrocities Act, and how we can draw some lessons from the implementation of Act for 26 years.
The SC Act has no checks and balances, and many a times it could be misused/ abused/overused. Clever manipulation can lead to large scale miscarriage of justice, at the cost of non-SC/STs.
In a clever move, and to the surprise/shock of S.C. that, they are non-S.Ts,lead to their prosecution.
The Act is selectively implemented. It is bulldozed. It is severely ” milked’ by pseudo-S.C.s ( who obtained false certificate ). One such fellow was made head of BHEL, with the convivance of a LJP S.C. leader.
Built-in safeguards help laws to be free from misinterpretation. You have expressed legitimate concerns, regarding the complainant’s discomfiture in booking a case against a mighty Gandhi.
Lokpal which got inspired by Karnataka Lokayuktha, suffers from many lacunae. Santosh Hegde was so brilliant, that singlehandedly he supervised, IFS and NOT IPS, in investigating Mining Scams.
Any system could be abused, if one of stakeholders allow that to be “abused”.
Like · Reply · December 9 at 7:17pm · Edited
Rahul Kumar

Write a comment…