Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 5 May, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2022
Ranjeet Kumar .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau
.. ... ... Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the ACB : Mr. Manoj Kumar, SC
......
C.A.V. ON 02.05.2023 PRONOUNCED ON 05 .05.2023
1. The instant Cr. Revision petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Spl. Judge, ACB, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No.1826 of 2021 (arising out of ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No.05 of 2018 corresponding to Vigilance Case No.05 of 2018) registered under Sections 7/ 13(2) of the P.C. Act and subsequent order dated 02.03.2023 whereby charge has been framed under Sections 7/ 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)of the P.C. Act.
2. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was Labour Superintendent Officer. It is alleged that he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- for preparing T.A. Bill of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant who is Labour Enforcement Officer. After completing preliminary enquiry, the case was registered and the trap was laid in which Rs.3,000/- was seized from one Bandhu Kumar Singh (driver of the petitioner). It is alleged that he had received the same at the instance and direction of this petitioner.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled principle of law that there should be some material to show in a Trap Case, there should be demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money from the accused / petitioner in order to make out a prima-facie case under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
4. In the instant case, it is admitted position that the amount was not received by this petitioner rather it was received from one Bandhu Kumar Singh who happens to be driver.
5. The demand of illegal gratification had been made for preparing T.A. Bill for the year 2018-19. As a matter of fact, there was no allotment for making the payment under the T.A. head by the Labour Superintendent, Agriculture Office, Gumla for the financial year 2018-19 and therefore 2 question of making any payment or receiving any illegal gratification in that regard was beyond any question. A letter of the Labour Superintendent vide letter dated 25.05.2019, Gumla, issued under RTI Act has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this petition. According to this letter at Para-3, it has been specifically stated that from the year 2018-19, the office had not received any amount from the Department under the T.A. head. In absence of any demand or pending work, there cannot be any case of misconduct against a public servant.
6. The complainant was on inimical term with the petitioner and he had been a witness in false SC/ST case filed against this petitioner vide Gumla S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No.5 of 2017 dated 03.08.2017 which was quashed vide order dated 02.08.2021 of this Court passed in Cr. M. P. No.672 of 2019. In this case, the complainant had appeared as a witness.
7. It is submitted that falsity of the case will be apparent from the fact that till 2017-18, he had disbursed T.A. to the informant/ complainant, but no such complaint was made regarding demand of commission.
8. The petitioner in the capacity of Labour Superintendent had earlier sought explanation on several occasions from this petitioner and other officers for delay in coming to the office and for various acts of dereliction of duty. The complainant nurtured grudge against the petitioner on account of this and in retribution has foisted the false case.
9. Learned APP has opposed the discharge petition it is submitted that at the stage of framing of charge there is a very limited scope for considering the defence of the accused. The driver of the petitioner was caught red- handed in the trap laid by the vigilance Department while accepting a bribe of Rs.3000. The plea that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage.
10. There are certain features of the present case which requires close scrutiny at this stage to avoid persecution for bonafide actions taken by the petitioner in his administrative capacity. While framing charge the scope of judicial scrutiny is a limited one, yet the law mandates that there should be judicial application of mind to the materials on record before a person is put on trial. There is room for considering the defence material while hearing a discharge petition is accepted position of law. It has been held in Asim Shariff v. NIA, (2019) 7 SCC 148 :
3"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record."
It has been held in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 :
"7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe."
11. Coming back to the present case, petitioner was the Labour Superintendent and complainant was Labour extension officer. The complaint was filed on 21.5.2018 and on several occasions preceding this date, letter had been served by the petitioner to the complainant seeking official explanation for different reasons. On 6.12.2016 the explanation was for being absent from duty on a working day. One explanation was sought for from the complainant on10.05.2018, for not making available compliance report to the directions for achieving the target by 1st May 2018. On 15.05.2018 directions were given to the complainant to make available the off-line registration card 4 and passbook of the beneficiaries. There are similar other official letters addressed by the petitioner to the complainant dated 10. 05.18, 3.5.18, 25.4.18 and 30.01.18. These letters have been annexed with the petition.
12. Complainant was at loggerhead with the petitioner will be evident from the fact, that she stood as a witness in a criminal case against the petitioner which was ultimately quashed by this Court.
13. The Labour Supt Gumla has furnished information under the RTI Act that there was no allotment available for disbursement in the financial year 2018 -19. When there was no available the allegation of making demand for clearance of the TA bill is beyond comprehension. Further it has also been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that in the financial year 2017-18, that the bill of the complainant had been cleared, without any allegation of unlawful demand.
14. There is material to show that in a criminal case against the petitioner was quashed in which the complainant stood as a witness.
15. In the trap laid nothing has been seized from the petitioner, but from the driver who is said to have taken the bribe amount under his instruction.
16. When all these facts are put together and the case is seen in its totality, the picture for false implication emerges without any shred of doubt. The earlier bills of the complainant in the previous financial year had been cleared without any complaint or demand of 50% of the T.A amount. There was no allotment under the TA head for processing the bill. The relation of complainant and the petitioner was far from normal, as will be evident from the series of explanation sought from the complainant in connection with her administrative duty. In the semiring feud between the petitioner and the complainant it does not stand to reason, that demand had been made for 50% commission for clearing the bill.
17. The acceptance of bribe part is equally not established. The amount was received from the driver of the petitioner.
18. Unless there is material to make out a prima facie case of demand and acceptance, presumption under Section 20 cannot be drawn. The foundational facts need to be established by cogent materials. This is a classic case of official rivalry, where petitioner after failing to implicate the accused earlier in a criminal case for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, initiated the second 5 round on charges under PC Act. Complainant was nurturing a grudge against the petitioner and the present case is an outcome of it.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that it will be travesty of justice to put the accused on trial on the above materials.
Impugned Order is set aside.
Criminal revision petition is allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 5th May, 2023 AFR/ Sandeep