Delhi District Court
(2) Rajbala vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 April, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(1) Ram Singh
S/o Late Umrao Singh
R/o H.No.300, Katra Sujan
Rai Bazar, Delhi Gate, Delhi
(2) Rajbala
W/o Sh.Mohan Lal,
R/o H.No.407Q, Gali No.2,
Than Singh Nagar,
Anand Parwat, Delhi
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi
Crl. Revision No. : 1/2015
FIR No. : 153/2012
Case Identification No. : 02401R0169252015
Police Station : Darya Ganj
Under Section : 420 IPC & 69 Indian Stamp Act
Date of Institution : 31.03.2015
Date of reserving the Order : 13.04.2015
Date of pronouncing the Order : 18.04.2015
Argued by: Sh.S.S.Saini, ld. counsel for the petitioners
Sh.Japan Babu, Ld. Substitute PP for the State
2
ORDER
1 Challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 06.02.2015, vide which charge for offence punishable u/sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') & 69 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Stamp Act') has been framed against the accused persons / petitioners.
2 Sh.S.S.Saini, ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the charge for offence u/sec.420 IPC is not made out, as there are no allegations of cheating against the petitioners. The allegations constitute overcharging for stamp paper, which is covered u/sec.69 of the Stamp Act. It is further argued that there is no evidence that the petitioners demanded any amount higher than the actual amount and moreover, the amount has not been recovered from the petitioners. It is further argued that the act of the petitioners would be governed by special statute i.e. the Stamp Act and charge under the general law can not be framed.
3 Sh.Japan Babu, Ld. Substitute PP for the State has drawn the attention of this court to supplementary statement dated 02.12.2013 of complainant Praveen Kumar, wherein, he has stated that both the accused persons made a misstatement to the complainant telling him that the higher amount demanded by them was towards their commission, fixed by the Government, to which they are entitled. It is further argued that the element of cheating and deception as contained u/sec.420 IPC is not covered u/sec.69 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, charge under the special Act 3 as well as the general law can be framed. It is further argued by Sh.Japan Babu that the conduct of petitioners amounts to offences punishable u/sec.7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the PC Act'). Ld. Substitute PP has relied upon the law laid down in Aman Bhatia Vs. State reported as Crl. Appeal No.348 of 2013 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.09.2014. It is further prayed by Sh.Japan Babu that directions be issued to the trial court to frame charges u/sec.7 & 13 of the PC Act.
4 I have heard the Ld. Substitute PP for the State, as well, as Ld. counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5 A perusal of the order dated 06.02.2015 reveals that Ld. MM has not discussed the facts or the reasons for framing the charge. There is no dispute to the preposition of law that order on charge need not be detailed. However, when the submissions of the counsels have been heard, it is advisible for the Court to indicate the reasons for framing of charge, howsoever, briefly.
6 The argument of Sh.Saini that there is no evidence of demand of higher amount by the petitioners is contrary to the facts on record. Supplementary statement of complainant Praveen Kumar dated 02.12.2013, specifically records that complainant asked the petitioners, reason for demanding higher amount, which both the petitioners explained to be their commission settled by the Government. The supplementary statement, 4 thus, contains, the element of demand & deception. Charge u/sec. 420 IPC has, thus, been rightly framed. Nonrecovery of the amount paid by the complainant is a matter of trial, which would not be sufficient to seek discharge, in the face of complainant's statement that he paid the higher amount and was in exchange given the stamp papers.
7 The argument of Sh. Saini that special Act will prevail over the general aw is also devoid of merits. Sec.69 of Stamp Act covers only overcharging. Element of deception and cheating by claiming that the higher amount being charged was towards the commission settled by the Government is not covered u/sec. 69 of the Stamp Act. This argument of Sh.Saini is also, therefore, rejected.
8 The argument of Ld. Addl. PP that charge for offence punishable u/sec.7 & 13 of the PC Act is also made out and reliance upon law laid down in Aman Bhatia's case (supra), does merit consideration. In the cited judgment, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held Stamp Vendor to be 'public servant' and amenable to trial for offence punishable u/sec.7 & 13 of the PC Act, for overcharging. However, perusal of the charge sheet reveals that no investigation has been carried out from the angle of Prevention of Corruption Act. Mandatory sanction u/sec.19 of the PC Act, for the court to take cognizance, has also not been sought by the IO. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the Ld. Trial Court to have considered the aforesaid offences. Moreover, the court of Ld. Magistrate is not even competent to have entertained a charge sheet under the PC Act. 5 There is, thus, no error in the order of Ld. MM, on this count. State shall, however, be within its rights to seek further investigation and pray the competent authority for sanction u/sec.19 of the PC Act, if so advised. 9 For the reasons stated above, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by Ld. MM. The same is upheld. Revision Petition being meritless is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of present order.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 18.04.2015 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS