Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Subodh Kumar Jain Son Of Late Sh. Madan ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2023
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2023/RJJP/000729]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10349/2022
Subodh Kumar Jain Son Of Late Sh. Madan Lal Jain, Aged About
62 Years, Resident Of House No. B-19, Opp. Jain Temple, Kirti
Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava and
Mr. Anuboth Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
Mr. Rajpal Godara, Addl. S.P., ACB
City-II, Jaipur.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24/01/2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/01/2023
1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 217/2016 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Police Station District Jaipur for offences under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under
Section 120-B of the IPC.
2. The challenge is on the ground that ingredients of none of the offences for which FIR has been registered are made out and the criminal prosecution is abuse of the process of law.
3. The prosecution case is that the informer of the Anti Corruption Bureau reported to its Inspector Vikram Singh that officers of SPML Infra company in collusion with officers of PHED Department of the Government are acting in corrupt manner to (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/000729] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022] provide undue benefit to the company. Thereafter, mobile No. 9414043976 of Mr. Keshav Gupta, Vice President of SPML Company and Mobile No. 9711308200 of Mr. Rishab Setty, the Managing Director of the said Company were put on surveillance and what was gathered from the talk between the two, on the very next day i.e. 19.7.2016, Mr. Akashdeep Totla and Mr. Praful Moreshwar Sontake, both the employees of the company aforesaid, were put on vigil. The team of ACB noticed that Akashdeep Totla had given a white packet to Mr. Praful Moreshwar Sontake and Moreshwar took the same on the referred four wheeler. The ACB team followed the vehicle and the vehicle stopped near the house of the petitioner and a man came out of the house. He was intercepted by the ACB Team, the man disclosed his name as Praful Moreshwar Sontake and introduced himself as an officer of SPML Company. On search, nothing was recovered from the physical possession. However, Praful Moreshwar Sontake disclosed that he had handed over the packet to the petitioner inside his house. When the team went inside the house, the packet was recovered within the shoe rack and the packet was containing Rs. 5 lacs. Praful Moreshwar Sontake admitted that he had given the money to the petitioner. On search another packet of Rs. 5 lacs was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Rs. 10 lacs was further found in the vehicle of Praful Moreshwar and Praful Moreshwar stated that the money was to be paid to Mr. R.K. Meena, the Chief Engineer of PHED Department. The ACB Team suspected that just to provide undue benefit to the company, the officers of PHED Department were (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/000729] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022] being bribed to cause wrongful loss to the public propoerty and revenue. During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Engineer in the Department of PHED.
4. Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the investigation of the case is already complete and uptil now there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner had demanded or received any bribe money. Moreover, nothing has been bought on record to show that any matter of the company was pending with the petitioner to allege that the recovered money was for the purpose of showing any undue help by the petitioner to the company. Learned counsel contends that the work assigned to the petitioner in PHED Department was to monitor statistical data and progress report of various projects ongoing in the State of Rajasthan. The decision as regards issuing tender, award of contract, acceptance of tender was being done by separate committees constituted for the purpose. Learned counsel next contends that Annex.8 is a letter of the Anti Corruption Bureau stating therein that the cash recovered from the house of the petitioner were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. Learned counsel next contends that the statement made by a co-accused to the Anti Corruption Bureau while in police custody cannot be considered against the petitioner. Even in that statement, the co- accused has not stated anything that any matter was pending with the petitioner or petitioner was requested to ensure undue help to the company by some other authorities. Learned counsel submits that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the same FIR (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/000729] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022] against the co-accused Ram Karan Meena, the Chief Engineer in the PHED Department in SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 707/2018 decided on 10.11.2022 and the same co-ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR in respect of Mr. Keshav Gupta, vice president of the company in SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 942/2020 decided on 10.11.2022. While quashing the FIR against Keshav Gupta, the co-ordinate Bench noticed that the mobile conversation between Keshav Gupta and Rishabh Shetty was only with respect to the business of the company and nothing more.
5. Mr. Imran Khan, learned Public Prosecutor contends that on completion of investigation, the allegation has been prima facie found proved. The law is well settled that even strong suspension would be sufficient to allow the criminal prosecution to go on when the act/admission alleged have social ramification, the court should not interfere at the threshold.
6. The co-ordinate Bench while quashing the same FIR against other co-accused persons, a copy at Annex.11 noticed that there was no evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by those accused persons. The Investigation officer was specific that in mobile conversation, there was nothing to say that secrecy of the Government in the PHED Department was divulged. The Investigation officer has stated that name of Mr. R.K. Meena came in the mobile conversation and that Mr. R.K. Meena was in fact a sub contractor of the company who was working in the Gagreen and Bharatpur project and not the Chief Engineer Mr. R.K. Meena. The Court further noticed that statement of the co-accused were taken while they were in custody so their statements cannot be (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/000729] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022] read against the petitioner. It is worth to mention that the aforesaid conversation was reason for putting trap by the ACB.
7. What the petitioner has stated on oath in the petition has not been controverted by the State respondent based on material on the record. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows:
7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.--
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person 5 or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 1 [three years] but which may extend to 2 [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--(a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, be may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) "Gratification." The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration." The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/000729] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]
(d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section. "
8. Evidently, nothing is on record to substantiate that the petitioner has accepted or agreed to accept for himself or for any other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. No material is on the record that any matter of the company was pending with the petitioner or was pending with any other authority of the PHED Department and the petitioner was persuaded to get the said favour from that authority, therefore, ingredients of offence under Section 7 of the Act are prima facie not made out.
9. Section 12 deals with punishment for abetment of offence defined under Section 7 or 11 of the Act. Evidently, there is no allegation of abetment against the petitioner, as such offence under Section 12 of the Act is not attracted. Section 13(1)(d) is also not made out as none had seen anyone giving money to the petitioner and the money found were found explained during investigation and the authorities have accepted that explanation and written a letter at Ex.8 that the money was not undisclosed or disproportionate to the known source of income. Section 13(2) provides for punishment for the aforesaid offence. Section 14 (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) [2023/RJJP/000729] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022] relates to habitual commission of offence under the provisions of the Act. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner was habitual offender, even the Government did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation made in the FIR. There is no allegation that the petitioner had hatched any conspiracy with some other co-accused. Moreover, since the ingredients of main offences have failed, the allegation of criminal conspiracy to commit those offences automatically failed.
10. Thus, it is crystal clear that the offence alleged remained unsubstantiated during investigation rather there is complete lack of evidence that the petitioner was found demanding or accepting bribe for providing any undue help. No material was brought on record to substantiate that any matter was pending with the petitioner wherein the company was accepting undue help. Only material available, is the statement of a co-accused while in police custody wherein the co-accused simply stated that he had given the packet of Rs. 5 lacs to the petitioner and had not stated the purpose for which the money was given to the petitioner. In absence of disclosure of purpose of payment of money, nothing can be inferred or added in absence of any material on the record. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in Ram Karan Meena case (supra), therefore, in my view, the continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Ingredients of none of the offences mentioned in the FIR is made out.
(Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM)
[2023/RJJP/000729] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]
11. Therefore, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner stands hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/34 (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:26:59 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)