High Court quashes CBI proceedings against former Jet Airways employees

The Bombay High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against four former employees of Jet Airways. These four employees include three senior pilots and one ground duty officer. They were accused of illegally paying money to an employee of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to get their Provident Fund (PF) claims approved after the airline shut down.

A single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav quashed the proceedings, stating that the case failed to prima facie establish offences under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the four petitioners. The court observed that the material collected and allegations made during the CBI investigation do not prove any criminal intent or any agreement by the petitioners to commit an illegal act. Therefore, continuing proceedings against them would be considered an abuse of the legal process.

In this matter, an FIR was registered by the CBI following an internal investigation conducted by the EPFO in July 2013. The investigation revealed that an employee named Machindra Bamne had accepted illegal money from 13 employees of Jet Airways, including these four petitioners. The CBI had registered the case under Sections 7 and 8 of the PC Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.

After the CBI filed the chargesheet, the four petitioners approached the High Court in 2024 to quash the case. They argued that Bamne's number was provided to them by other Jet Airways employees, who introduced Bamne as a "private consultant" who would assist them in withdrawing their deposited PF. The petitioners stated that they had never met Bamne in person and had only communicated via telephone. They had paid the money without knowing that Bamne was an EPFO employee. Therefore, the allegation of giving an illegal bribe under Section 8 of the PC Act cannot be levelled against them.

However, opposing these applications, the CBI argued that the evidence shows that each petitioner had transferred large sums of money into the joint account of Bamne and his wife. The timeline of the transactions makes it clear that this money was given as an illegal bribe for the processing of PF claims.

As per Justice Jadhav's judgment, there is nothing to show that the petitioners had knowledge that Bamne was EPFO staff. Furthermore, the court said that Section 8 of the PC Act provides for punishment for giving an illegal bribe to perform a public duty, but there is nothing to show that the petitioners had such an intention. The court clarified that intention under Section 8 cannot be inferred solely from the fact of money transfer; such intention must be clear from the material collected during the investigation.

The court further added that even if the bank transactions and the PF claim process are fully accepted, the material does not show that the petitioners had any intention to induce or reward a public servant to perform their official duties. Additionally, no evidence was found of any understanding or meeting of minds among the petitioners to commit an illegal act. The prosecution primarily relies on financial transactions and the identity of the recipient, which cannot sustain these allegations without the necessary connection.