Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shweta Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:49072
1 MCRC-16098-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16098 of 2024
SHWETA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Alka Singh Baghel - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for respondent no.2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This M.Cr.C. is filed by Shweta Singh Bisen, being aggrieved of the order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Narsinghpur, rejecting an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that she had filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking the prosecution to provide them the bill issued by Kamal Store for a sum of Rs.27,535/- . Allegation was that under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner was not given complete set of the documents and therefore, a demand was made to supply copy of the bill of Kamal Store along with copy of CCTV footage recorded in DVR but they were not made part of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 25-09-2024 17:33:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:49072 2 MCRC-16098-2024 charge-sheet.
3. Petitioner's case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that while the complainant who was working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat was contacted to settle bills of Kamal Store for a sum of Rs.27,535/-, an expense which was incurred by accused Shweta Bisen on account of her marriage in lieu of not subjecting the road constructed under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna to any testing, but no such bill was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the demand of illegal gratification. Similarly, it is submitted that there are two CCTV cameras situated in the office of CEO Janpad Panchayat, but DVR containing recording of those two CCTV cameras was not produced by the prosecution.
4. Mr. Satyam Agrawal, in his turn, submits that an inspection was carried out by Shweta Bisen, CEO Janpad Panchayat. Thereafter, the message was communicated to the complainant through Rahul Dole, Sub- Engineer that if the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat wishes to evade any enquiry into the quality of the road constructed in their Village Panchayat, then he was directed to settle bill of Rs.27,535/- that was raised by Kamal Stores in favour of Shweta Bisen for some purchases which were made by Shweta Bisen during her marriage and which was outstanding.
5. However, it has come on record that when complainant refused to settle this bill, then a bargain was struck and it was agreed that complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of dropping the enquiry into the quality of road. Thereafter, complainant had taken this matter with the Special Police Establishment which lodged F.I.R. registering Case Crime No.0218 of 2018 Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 25-09-2024 17:33:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:49072 3 MCRC-16098-2024 dated 08.10.2018, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act, 2018). This was the preliminary F.I.R. in regard to the allegation of demand of illegal gratification on the basis of the recording which was made by the complainant qua the accused persons.
6. It is the prosecution's case that a trap was laid and Mr. Rahul Dole was caught red handed accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of Ms. Shweta Bisen and therefore, the trial is pending before the learned Special Judge.
7. On perusal of the documents produced, we are of the prima facie opinion that bill issued by Kamal Store for sum of Rs.27,535/- was never given to the complainant. Therefore, there was no occasion for the prosecution to seize that bill from the possession of the complainant. It was allegedly raised against the petitioner for the alleged purchases made by her.
8. As per the prosecution story, only a demand was put to the complainant to settle that bill which must have been in possession of the accused Shweta Bisen, because it pertains to shopping which was carried out by Shweta Bisen in connection with her marriage and which according to her was outstanding with Kamal Store. Thus, after striking a bargain for payment of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of settlement of bill of Kamal Store, we are of the prima facie opinion that non-seizure of bill or its non- production along with the charge-sheet will not have any impact on the outcome of the trial, therefore, this demand is not just.
9. As far as CCTV footage camera, D.V.R. is concerned, i.e. in the possession of the office of the CEO Janpad Panchayat and thus, that too will Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 25-09-2024 17:33:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:49072 4 MCRC-16098-2024 not have any material bearing, because the correctness of the allegation is to be tested on the basis of the voice sample in the voice recorder and also taking into consideration as to whether, there was a demand for not subjecting the pieces of road collected by the CEO and whether the trap was properly laid and whether Rahul Dole was caught red handed or not and further that enquiry was required to be ordered by Rahul Dole or by the CEO.
10. Thus, both the documents sought for by the petitioner Shweta Singh Bisen i.e. bill of Kamal Store and DVR recovered from the CCTV cameras installed in the office of CEO Janpad Panchayat have no bearing on the trial. Thus, the demand being not justified, is rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.
11. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Submissions made by Ms. Alka Singh Baghel that this Court should observe that these documents will never be relied cannot be granted because there are several stages of trial and several rights of the complainant and the accused can be taken care of under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh Sanhita, 2023. Thus, any observation at the instance of Ms. Alka Baghel being uncalled for is denied.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 25-09-2024
17:33:16