Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Dhakate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2017
Criminal Revision No. 2360/2016
(Rajesh Dhakate ... Vs. ... State of Madhya Pradesh)
04-01-2017
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the
respondent.
This revision has been filed by the petitioner praying for a relief of quashing the charges framed against the petitioner in Special case No.04/2016 by order dated 30.7.2016 whereby charges for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against the petitioner.
The respondent has appeared on advance copy and on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and decided finally.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner which would constitute an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant Hemant Kumar Thakur has handed over some money to one Govind Prasad Gohiya and no amount has infact been handed over to the petitioner by the complainant, nor has he ever demanded the same. It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid aspect which is clearly established from a bare perusal of page 67 of the petition, which is the forensic report prepared by the respondent wherein it has been stated that during the trap proceedings when the hands of the petitioner were washed with sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution did not change and remained colourless. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect clearly establishes that no amount was ever handed over or received by the petitioner and in such circumstances, no offence is made out against the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondent per contra has taken this Court to the complaint filed by the complainant and the case registered by the authorities against the petitioner. It is stated that as per the complaint, the petitioner who was working as Assistant Manager in Khadi Gramodyog had demanded a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant for release of his loan of Rs.8,75,000/- and had agreed to accept a sum of Rs.15,000/- as part payment towards the total amount of bribe of Rs.75,000/- and had also agreed to accept the remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- after sanction of the loan.
It is stated that as per the complainant, the amount of Rs.15,000/- was to be handed over to the petitioner on 27.10.2014 and accordingly after recording his statement, a trap was set up during which the petitioner alongwith his associate Govind Prasad Gohiya were trapped receiving a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. It is stated that as per the report and the proceedings, it is apparent that the amount was handed over by the complainant to Govind Prasad Gohiya for being handed over to the petitioner and both of them i.e. the petitioner and Govind Prasad Gohiya were caught red handed at the same spot alongwith the sum of Rs.15,000/- and that the sodium carbonate solution changed colour when the hands of the co-accused Govind Prasad Gohiya were washed with the same. It is stated that in such circumstances as there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner, the Court below has not committed any illegality in framing charges against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that prima facie at this stage, there is material on record justifying framing of the charges and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Court below framing charges against the petitioner. We are constraint to state the same as at this stage this Court is not required to go into the veracity or correctness of the charges as the same would be determined only after evidence is led by the parties and the Court after assimilating the same arrives at the proper conclusion.
At this stage, the only thing required to be looked into is whether on the basis of the FIR and the documents on record, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for offence punishable under the relevant provisions of the law.
In the circumstances, as the allegations against the petitioner are prima facie sufficient for framing of charges against the applicant, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 30.7.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mandla, District Mandla in Special Case No.04/2016.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the revision filed by the petitioner being meritless stands dismissed.
(R.S.Jha) (A.K. Joshi)
Judge Judge
pp.