Lalchand Soni vs State on 28 March, 2023

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lalchand Soni vs State on 28 March, 2023

1. In impugnment, is the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Bikaner whereby the learned trial court while framing charges against the petitioner, he has been directed to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act") and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter to be referred to as the "IPC") in sessions case bearing no. 7/2016 titles as State of Rajasthan versus Lalchand Soni and others. The said case arises out F.I.R. No. 252/2015 registered at Police Choki A.C.B. (special unit), Police Station C.P.S., A.C.B., Jaipur.

(Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (2 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

2. The genesis of the present discord is traceable to the first information report being FIR No. 252/2015 dated 14.09.2015 lodged by Vinod Kumar Kumawat alleging inter alia that he is an electrical contractor working in the name and style of Dev Infrastructure, Jaipur. On 03.09.2014, he was awarded a work order by the U.I.T. Bikaner for installation of high mast lights at various locations in Bikaner city. He had completed the work by the month of June 2015. On completion, the work done by him was recorded in the measurement book (M.B.) and after calculating the rates, the first and final bill was prepared which was checked by the engineers of the U.I.T. and was sent to the accounts branch. When complainant met to petitioner who was working as accountant in the U.I.T., regarding the payment of the bill, petitioner demanded a commission of 4% of the total bill amount as bribe, otherwise threatened to delay the payment on objections to be raised by him.

3. After receiving the said complaint, the telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded and on 18.09.2015, Mohammed Ashiq was caught red- handed while accepting a bribe of ₹ 60,000 for the petitioner.

4. Further details being unnecessary at this stage, it would be suffice to state that on the basis of these allegations the aforementioned F.I.R. was registered and was taken up for investigation. On the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under sections 7, 8, and 13(1) D and 13 (2) of the Act and section 120 B of the IPC.

(Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (3 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner herein filed an application under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court, stating therein that the documents which have been obtained by the petitioner from the U.I.T. Bikaner under Right to Information Act, does not match with the documents so submitted by the prosecution with the charge-sheet. Prayer was made for taking those documents on record. This application came to be rejected by the learned trial court on 02.08.2021 observing that during the course of argument on the point of framing of charges, the petitioner may rely upon the certified copies of the documents obtained by him from the U.I.T.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein filed S.B. criminal miscellaneous petition number 4463/2021 before this court and this court disposed of the said petition vide order dated 27.08.2021 with giving liberty to bring to the attention of the court to the certified copies of the documents.

7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the prosecution sanction order dated 31.03.2016 was also challenged by the petitioner herein in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 2095/2016 alleging inter alia that the final bill was prepared on 16.10.2015 while the trap was managed on 18.09.2015 which, as per him, shows that it was pre planned. Prosecution sanction was issued without considering the facts and without application of mind. This court vide order dated 21.11.2016 disposed of said petition observing that the said issue can be raised by the petitioner at the stage of charge arguments before the trial court (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (4 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] and it is expected from the trial court that same be considered as per law.

8. The matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court for consideration of charges and the detailed impugned order was passed directing framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences mentioned above. However, petitioner was discharged from the offence under section 8 of the Act. The said order is under challenge in the instant revision.

9. Petitioner present in person has argued that there is no material on record against him to proceed with the case and no offence whatsoever is made out against him; that a M.B. total paging from page No.1 to 21 as well as total 128 pages of file in respect of disputed bill were obtained by the investigation officer from the U.I.T., but prosecution agency withheld various documents including important 9 pages of M.B. along with other documents, meaning thereby prosecution agency was out and out to implicate petitioner falsely.

10. It is argued that the documents submitted by the petitioner alongwith the application of Section 91 Cr.P.C. reveals that as a matter of fact the final bill was signed and passed by the Executive Engineer on 16.10.2015 only and prior to this date no work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner.

11. It is further argued that the petitioner also lodged an FIR against the complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat alongwith Executive Engineer Prem Vashisht, Assistant Engineer Mahaveer (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (5 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] Prasad, as well as T.L.O. Addl. Superintendent of Police, ACB Unit Bikaner namely Parbat Singh and after thorough investigation, the challan was filed against complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat, Praveen Kumar Kumawat Junior Engineer, Prem Vashist Executive Engineer and Mahaveer Prasad Tak Assistant Engineer for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 166 A & 167 of IPC in relation to the documents of disputed bill and M.B. After the investigation of that case, it was found that all these engineers of the U.I.T. alongwith complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat hatched a conspiracy with each other, made false and fabricated entry in the measurement book (M.B.) as well as in the disputed final bill and wiped out the original record.

12. It is further argued by the petitioner that the prosecution sanction against the petitioner was granted in a mechanical manner as 11 points queries which was sought by the appointing authority from ACB was never replied even after various reminders. Thus, the prosecution sanction was issued on the basis of incomplete documents as well as documents forged by the engineers of U.I.T.

13. It is further argued that in the instant case, entire investigation has been conducted against the petitioner in a subjective manner, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and despite their being the direction of this Court in two successive criminal misc. petitions filed by the petitioner, the learned trial court has failed to adhered the documents so submitted by the petitioner at the time of charge arguments and has rely only upon (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (6 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] the forged and tainted documents as well as false evidence submitted by the prosecution.

14. It is further argued that after the investigation of the FIR lodged by the petitioner, it has been an admitted case of the prosecution that the M.B. has been manipulated; that the original M.B. issued by the then X. En. Mr. Om Prakash Godara has been wiped out by all the three culprit engineers of U.I.T. before submitting it to the trial court. As per the petitioner, the M.B. bears the back date signature of Executive Engineer Prem Vashist, whereas he was not posted at UIT, Bikaner till July, 2015, which clearly indicates that prosecution has manipulated the facts so as to fasten the illegal liability upon petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner does not know the person namely Mohd. Ashiq at any point of time and this aspect is very much clear as said Mohd. Ashiq has also submitted before the trial court that he does not know the petitioner therefore, there was no question of taking alleged bribe on behalf of the petitioner. Besides it, there are no call details at any point of time between the petitioner and said Mohd. Ashiq.

15. It is further argued that the controversial bill was submitted on 06.10.2015 for the first time and disputed work was verified by the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer on 08.10.2015. Ultimately, bill was passed for payment by the Executive Engineer on 16.10.2015. Prior to this point of time there was no occasion for complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat to contact (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (7 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] petitioner for processing the payment of disputed bill and as such the petitioner has falsely been implicated.

16. It is further argued that the trial court while framing the charges against the petitioner has not at all considered all these aspects therefore, the charges so framed against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same are liable to quashed and set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that the FIR which has been lodged by the complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat against the petitioner was nothing but a tool aimed at taking vengeance and thus, the petitioner urged that the charges which have been framed against him are absolutely groundless and deserve to be quashed.

17. Reliance was placed by the petitioner in support of his arguments on the following judgments:-

1. Chandan Kumar Basu VS State of Bihar 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 515

2. Pitamber Harwani VS State of Rajasthan 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 862

3. State By Police Inspector VS Sri. T. Venkatesh Murthy 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 1049

4. State of Karnataka VS Ameer Jan 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 1196

18. As against this, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner and argued that all the ingredients necessary for the commission of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are very much in existence on the record of the case. As per him, for the purposes (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (8 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] of framing charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen and there are prima facie allegations and materials on the record of the case which show that all the ingredients in relation to the demand of bribe by the petitioner have been brought on record. It is argued by him that it cannot be said that there do not exist prima facie material on the record. Hence, the order framing charges does not call for any interference by this court and considering the gravity of the charges and the disclosures in the investigation, discharge of petitioner at this stage is wholly unwarranted. Thus, the order of framing of charges against the petitioner ought not to be interfered with by this Court, he insisted.

19. Learned public prosecutor fortified the above made submissions, by placing reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Bhawna Bai VS Ghanshyam 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 1315

2. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45

3. Onkar Nath Mishra VS State (NCT of Delhi) 2007 0 Supreme (SC) 1633

4. Sajjan Kumar VS Central Bureau of Investigation 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 885

5. Srilekha Sentilkumar VS Dy. S.P., CBI, ACB, Chennai 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 701

6. State Of M. P. VS Mohan Lal 2000 0 Supreme (SC) 1106

7. Union Of India VS Prafulla Kumar Samal 1978 0 Supreme (SC) 346 (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (9 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

20. I have duly considered the rival submissions made by the petitioner present in person, the written submissions filed by him, the learned public prosecutor and have gone through the entire record of the case. The original case file was also called for perusal of the Court.

21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. Prafful Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 :

AIR 1979 SC 366), has observed as under:--

10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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;

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (10 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

22. In view of above legal pronouncement, perusal of the record reveals that in the instant case following 3 sets of documents releated to the one and same disputed work and bill are available before the court.

23. The first set contains the charge sheet filed against the petitioner and documents submitted by the prosecution in support thereof. (This shall be hereinafter referred to as the "first set of documents")

24. The second set contains the documents obtained by the petitioner from the U.I.T. Bikaner in respect of the same disputed work and bill under Right to Information Act. (This shall be hereinafter referred to as the "second set of documents") (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (11 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

25. The third set contains the F.I.R. logged by the petitioner against trap laying officer (T.L.O.) Parbat Singh, complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat, Executive Engineer Prem Vashist, Assistant Engineer Mahaveer Prasad Tak and charge sheet thereof filed against them along with documents in relation to that investigation. (This shall be hereinafter referred to as the "third set of documents")

26. After prima facie perusal of all the said 3 sets of the documents, which are in respect of the same controversial work and bill, the following prima facie material can be crystallized apparent on the face of the record : -

27. According to the first set of the documents, the investigation officer concluded with the outcome that the complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat had completed the disputed work in June, 2015; that the then Junior Engineer Praveen Kumar Kumawat entered the measurement of the work in M.B. number 337 at page number 10 to 16; that Junior Engineer prepared the bill and send it to Assistant Engineer Mahaveer Prasad on 10.06.2015; that Mahaveer Prasad, the then Assistant Engineer also checked the bill as well as M.B., put his signature on it and sent to the Executive Engineer Prem Vashishat for further action; that on 26.08.2015, Executive Engineer Prem Vashishat physically inspected the disputed work and after finding the measurement recorded in M.B. and the valuation calculated in the disputed bill being "correct", he put his signature in M.B. by marking the checking note. Thereafter, the disputed bill was handed over to petitioner on the (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (12 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] same day i.e. on 26.08.2015 for payment processing. After the trap proceeding on 18.09.2015 when the petitioner was taken to his office, he took out the records related to the disputed bill from his almirah and handed over to the T.L.O., copies of which were taken into custody by the T.L.O. All these facts and evidences are crux of the first set of the documents.

28. Whereas, contrary to all these so called evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner, the second set of the documents reveals that U.I.T. Bikaner has provided the A.C.B. copy of the complete 128 page file as well as copy of M.B. number 337 containing pages 1 to 21 but instead of making the entire record the basis of the prosecution case, the prosecution made only selected documents as part of present charge sheet as per its convenience and requirement.

29. This fact is corroborated by the office note number 36 available in the second set of the documents which reveals that the disputed bill was submitted in the accounts branch of the U.I.T. on 06.10.2015 and on the same day, besides other objections, one of the objection came on the record was to the effect that the disputed M.B. did not bear the signature of the issuing the then Executive Engineer Om Prakash Godara. Another fact is that the measurement of the work was recorded on page number 1 to 16 of the disputed M.B.; that all the 3 engineers had jointly conducted the physical verification of the work on 08.10.2015. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer had passed the disputed the bill for payment on 16.10.2015.

(Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (13 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

30. Meaning thereby, the disputed bill could not have reached to the table of accounts branch or to the petitioner before 16.10.2015 as it was not complete in all respect till that day. Therefore, question of dealing the bill by the petitioner could have arisen only after 16.10.2015 and not prior to it. On the day of trap i.e. 18.09.2015, the petitioner was not in possession of disputed bill to deal with.

31. It also prima facie appears from the perusal of the present charge sheet that had the copy of bill file actually been taken into custody by the T.L.O. after the trap proceedings on 18.09.2015, a memo to that effect would have definitely been prepared for the same. Absence of the memo reinforces the face that on 18.09.2015, the disputed bill was not even passed by the Executive Engineer for payment and it was pending with the Executive Engineer only, therefore, the disputed bill file could not have been available in the almirah of the petitioner and there could be no question of the T.L.O. taking custody of its copy. The above mentioned crux of the second set of the documents prima facie reveals that the facts recorded in the first set of the documents are prima facie baseless and beyond the record of the original bill file.

32. The third set of documents reveals that page number 1 to 9 of the disputed M.B. number 337 were concealed from the court while submitting the instant charge sheet, which actually contained the measurement of the disputed work. This set also reveals that the measurement of the disputed work is not (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (14 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] mentioned at page number 10 to 16 of the M.B. as claimed by the prosecution; that after the transfer of the then Executive Engineer Om Prakash Godara, who issued the M.B. number 337 at the relevant time with his signature was wiped out and a fake M.B. was prepared in its place, which did not bear the signature of the issuing Executive Engineer. Neither the name of the work nor the name of the firm doing the work is mentioned on the first page of the fake M.B.; that during the investigation of the present F.I.R. (No. 252/2015) the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer all the three have made wrong statements under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which are contrary to the record of the disputed work and bill. This is the crux of the third set of the documents.

33. Entire formalities so required to be carried out by the petitioner for processing payment of disputed bill could have been initiated only after issuance of the work completion certificate, physical verification of the disputed work and after issuance of pass for payment order by the Executive Engineer. It is prima facie proved that "work completion certificate" was never issued in relation to the disputed work by the competent engineer. It is further prima facie proved that physical verification of the disputed work was made on 08.10.2015 and the disputed bill was cleared and passed for payment by the Executive Engineer on 16.10.2015. On the basis of above facts it is further prima facie found that till 18.09.2015, the date of alleged trap, neither the disputed work was verified nor the work completion certificate was issued nor the (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (15 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] bill was cleared for payment by the Executive Engineer. Hence, there was no occasion and reason for the petitioner to demand bribe and for the complainant to agree for the same.

34. The trap proceedings were laid on 18.09.2015 and it is prima facie apparent that till that date, no work of complainant was pending with the petitioner even disputed bill was not cleared by the Executive Engineer for payment till 18.09.2015. Though it is true that the pendency of the proceedings/work is not a sine qua non for holding an accused guilty under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act but the fact of non pendency of the work cannot be without significance. The record of the case prima facie reveals that with regard to the official favour as on the date of alleged trap, prima facie no bill was pending with the petitioner for clearance in respect of the work done by the complainant and hence, there was no question whatsoever of demanding the bribe from the complainant and payment thereof on 18.09.2015 as alleged. Besides it, prima facie there was no motive to demand the bribe, since at the time of alleged handing over of the bribe money, the petitioner was not in a position to do a favour or disfavour to the complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat. So prior to 18.09.2015 neither the complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat could have ask for processing payment of his disputed bill in his favour nor the petitioner could have demand money in lieu of alleged work. In the light of above positive evidence, the contention of the petitioner that there was no official favour to be done by him so as to make the alleged demand from the complainant holds water. (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (16 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

35. In so far as the principle enunciated in the judgments submitted by the public prosecutor in support of his contentions are concerned, all the decisions cited by him are of no avail to him. In the case of Bhawna Bai VS Ghanshyam 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 1315, it was held that at the time of framing charges, only prima facie case is to be seen. It is not to be seen at this stage whether case is proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. At the stage of framing charge, court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused and while evaluating materials, strict standard of proof is not required.

36. In the case of Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45 , it was held that court does not have to delve deep into probative value of evidence regarding the charge and it has only to see if a prima facie case has been mace out or not. Veracity of material is a matter of trial and not required to be examined while framing charge.

37. In the case of Onkar Nath Mishra VS State (NCT of Delhi) 2007 0 Supreme (SC) 1633 , it was held that it is trite that at stage of framing of charge court is required to evaluate material and documents on record with a view to finding out if facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed existence of all ingredients constituting alleged offence. At the stage of framing charge, Court has to apply its mind to question whether or not there is any ground for presuming commission of offence by accused.

(Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (17 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021]

38. In the case of Sajjan Kumar VS Central Bureau of Investigation 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 885 , it was held that while framing of charge u/s 228 or considering discharge petition u/s 227 it is not for the court to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability etc. since the evidentiary value of the materials is to be appreciated at the trial.

39. In the case of Srilekha Sentilkumar VS Dy. S.P., CBI, ACB, Chennai 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 701, it was held that issues requiring proper trial after adducing evidence for decision cannot be decided u/s 239 CrPC.

40. In the case of State Of M. P. VS Mohan Lal 2000 0 Supreme (SC) 1106, it was held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then charge has to be framed. Per contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by the cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence then the charge can be quashed.

41. In the case of Union Of India VS Prafulla Kumar Samal 1978 0 Supreme (SC) 346, it was held that the words not (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (18 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post- office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

42. There cannot be two opinions in respect of the principles laid down in the above judgments but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, no benefit from the aforesaid judgments can be dug out as in none of the above case it was prima facie established that the case brought by the prosecution was based on false, forged and fabricated documents and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was beyond and contrary to the actual record.

43. So far as the prosecution sanction is concerned, as discussed above, prima facie the sanction has been issued on the basis of false, forged and fabricated documents collected during the (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (19 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] investigation and furnished before the sanctioning authority. Despite the request of the petitioner, the original record of the U.I.T. Bikaner was not called for by the sanctioning authority for perusal before issuing the sanction more so, the sanctioning authority did not consider the record cautiously and with full scrutiny therefore, prosecution sanction order cannot be held to be legal and cannot be acted upon. In the case of Chandan Kumar Basu VS State of Bihar 2014 0 Supreme (SC) 515 , it was held that it is well settled that question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well.

44. In case of State of Bihar and Anr Vs P.P. Sharma reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1260, it is held as follows:-

"47. The investigating officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. The police investigation is, therefore, the foundation stone on which the whole edifice of criminal trial rests, an error in its chain of investigation may result in miscarriage of justice.

45. Therefore, on overall analysis of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the investigating officer has failed to bring forward prima facie clinching materials to proceed against the petitioner. The duty of the investigating officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record the guilt but to bring out the real unvarnished truth, as (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (20 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] enunciated in case of Jamuna Chaudhary Vs State of Bihar reported in 1974 Criminal Law Journal 890. Looking to the facts and circumstances to the case it is prima facie found that the prosecution has failed in its duty to bring out the real unvarnished truth. There was ample prima facie evidence on the record to show that the reason and motive for demand of bribe has not been sustained by the prima facie positive evidence moreover, amount of alleged bribe had also not been recovered from the petitioner.

46. The prosecution has not made the part of charge sheet the entire relevant record obtained from the U.I.T., rather few selected documents have been filed with instant charge sheet according to their need and convenience. Some very important record, as stated above, has been withheld from the Court by the prosecution, some records have been tampered and forged by the engineers of U.I.T. Bikaner in conspiracy with the complainant, some records have been wiped out resulting into filing of charge sheet against the complainant Vinod Kumar Kumawat along with Junior Engineer Praveen Kumar Kumawat, Assistant Engineer Mahaveer Prasad Tak and Executive Engineer Prem Vashist for the offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 166A, 167 of the I.P.C. in relation to the disputed bill and M.B. however, T.L.O. was exonerated after the investigation. Filing of the above charge sheet against the complainant as well as engineers of U.I.T. in relation to the bill and M.B. in question, is a (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (21 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] significant circumstance which prima facie goes in favour of petitioners claim of innocence.

47. Cumulative perusal of all the 3 sets of the documents reveal that the present prosecution brought against the petitioner is based on tempered and forged documents as well as tainted evidence, proved in a subsequent criminal investigation. Thus, there is a significant grey area in the prosecution case regarding what actually recorded in the original documents of the U.I.T. Bikaner and what actually made part of the charge sheet filed against the petitioner. The crux of second and third sets of documents also prima facie proves that facts of the first set of the documents (the present charge sheet) are prima facie false and contrary to the original record. Forged, tainted and fabricated documents were made basis of prosecution against the petitioner, which completely falsifies the conclusions arrived at in the instant charge sheet against the petitioner. The evidence which the prosecution proposes to proposes, even if fully accepted at this stage, before it is challenged by the cross examination, prima facie cannot show that petitioner committed the alleged crime in the light of the original record of the disputed bill file.

48. On the basis of material available on record, there is no prima facie case for commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. There is no prima facie ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged. There is no strong suspicion against the petitioner. Submission of charge sheet is based totally on unfounded materials and it has resulted in (Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) [2023/RJJD/006540] (22 of 22) [CRLR-1071/2021] causing miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Judge has mechanically dealt while framing the charges against the after quoting only the prosecution allegation.

49. Therefore, without meticulous examination of the materials on record, I am of the humble view that the learned trial Court has committed palpable error in framing charges against the petitioner and as such, in the interest of justice, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

50. Accordingly, instant criminal revision petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case bearing no. 7/2016 framing charges against the petitioner stands quashed and set aside. The petitioner is hereby discharged from the offences charged.

Petition allowed.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J 99-Payal/-

(Downloaded on 28/03/2023 at 11:36:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur