Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Kant vs State Of Haryana on 17 December, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision:17.12.2010
Kamal Kant ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate,
Mr.Aditya Sanghi, Advocate and
Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav,DAG, Haryana
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the Special Judge Narnaul, whereby the charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Special Judge has erred in framing the charge against the petitioner under Section 385 IPC as the offence of extortion was not made out in this case. Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 2
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that although offence of extortion is not made out in this case but the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') read with Section 120-B IPC as all the accused in connivance with each other had conspired to commit the offence in question.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.8.2006, Krishan Lal gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Gurgaon to the effect that he wanted to purchase the land measuring 8 kanals from Keshav in the name of his wife Sunita Devi. He had made the requisite payment in this regard. On 10.8.2006, Krishan Lal went to the office of Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed registered. Vinod Kumar Registry Clerk, Kamal Kant Computer Clerk,Hawa Singh Naib Tehsildar, Suresh Treasury Clerk had demanded a sum of ` 500/-, ` 300/-, ` 2000/- and ` 100/-respectively for doing the needful. Om Parkash Girdawar also assured to get the mutation sanctioned on receipt of ` 1700/-. Hence, FIR in question was registered. A raid was organized and the accused were caught red handed while accepting bribe. Vide order dated 3.7.2009, learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner and his co- accused under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by way of CRR No.1822 of 2009. The said petition was allowed and it was held as under:-
"Thus, the learned Special Judge at the time of Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 3 framing of charge has treated the petitioner as a public servant. However, the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has not been accorded to the petitioner by the Collector Mohindergarh vide letter dated 24.10.2007. In case the petitioner has to be treated as a public servant then he can be proceeded for an offence under the Act after sanction for prosecution has been accorded by the competent authority. In case, the petitioner is not treated as a public servant, then the charge has to be framed against him accordingly. In these circumstances, it is evident that the order whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner by treating him as a public servant without any grant of sanction for prosecution is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3.7.2009 whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act is set aside qua the petitioner. The Special Judge is directed to pass a fresh order qua framing of the charge against the petitioner in accordance with law."
Learned Special Judge has framed charge against the petitioner under Section 385 IPC vide order dated 24.9.2010.
Section 383 IPC reads as under:-
"Extortion Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 4 Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
Section 385 IPC reads as under:-
Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion:-
" Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Learned State counsel has very fairly conceded that offence under Section 385 IPC is not made out in this case.
Learned Special Judge, while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has held as under:-
"Presently, the accused has been held not to be a public servant by the Hon'ble High Court and now it is to be seen as to whether a person sitting on the seat meant for a public servant in the office of Sub Registrar is guilty of any offence if he had raised demand of illegal Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 5 gratification."
The trial Court has failed to correctly interpret the order passed by this Court. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2010 passed in CRR No.1822 of 2009 had not held that the petitioner is not a public servant rather it was held that in case the petitioner is to be treated as a public servant then he can be proceeded for an offence under the Act after sanction for his prosecution had been accorded by the competent authority and in case,he is not to be treated as a public servant, then the charge has to be framed against the petitioner accordingly. Vide letter dated 24.10.2007 sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was not accorded by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner could not be termed as a Government servant. The fact that whether the petitioner was a public servant or not was left open to be decided by the trial Court and thereafter, the trial Court was to proceed further in accordance with law.
In the present case, sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was not accorded by the competent authority by stating that he could not be treated as a Government servant as the petitioner is employed with the Red Cross Society and was attending the duty of the computer clerk in the office of the Sub Registrar.
Section 120-A IPC reads as under:-
Definition of criminal conspiracy:- Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 6
"When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
Section 120-B IPC reads as under:-
Punishment of criminal conspiracy:_ (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous of imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than Criminal Revision No. 2725 of 2010(O&M) 7 a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."
From the facts of the case, it appears that all the accused had conspired together to demand bribe in order to register the sale deed in favour of the wife of the complainant. All the accused were caught red handed while accepting bribe in a trap laid by the Vigilance Department . In these circumstances, there is force in the arguments raised by the learned State counsel that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 120-B IPC.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the Special Judge is set aside and the learned Special Judge is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 17, 2010 anita