High Court Of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
RAVINDER KUMAR SEHRAWAT @ R. K. SEHRAWAT - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondents
CRL REV. P. 799 Of 2005
Decided On : 07/02/2007
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 120-B IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for allowing a private person to conduct official work and accepting illegal gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a grave suspicion against the petitioner and that the charges were correctly framed. The court emphasized that the prima facie view indicated the active complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences, the sufficiency of evidence, and the framing of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the power to sift and weigh evidence for finding a prima facie case, the grave suspicion against the accused, and the independent assessment of material against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the order on charge, emphasizing that the views expressed were of a prima facie nature and not to be considered during the trial.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order on charge dated 02. 09. 2005 and the charge framed on 14. 09. 2005. The petitioner has been charged of having committed offences under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has also been charged of the offences under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having conspired with co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat ). In substance, the charge against the petitioner and the co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat) is that from 1997 till 11. 06. 2003, the petitioner while working as UDC in the office of the Deputy assessor and Collector, House Tax, MCD at Green Park allowed co-accused Ram singh Rawat, a private person, to illegally sit on his seat and conduct official work for him and that the co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat) had demanded and accepted rs. 5,000/- from the complainant (Shri Alok Gupta) on behalf of the petitioner on 11. 06. 2003 as illegal gratification for issuing a "no Objection Certificate" (NOC) to the complainant (Mr Alok Gupta) to reconstruct his house. Since it is alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused conspired in the act an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC was allegedly committed by them. In addition, the petitioner, being a public servant, has also been charged, as mentioned above of having committed offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
( 2 ) IT was contended by Mr Mittal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the complainant wanted an NOC for reconstruction of his house at J-263, Saket. As per the allegations, the co-accused (Ram Singh rawat) demanded money for the issuance of the NOC. He held himself out to be a clerk in the department. The complainant lodged a complaint with the CBI based on a tape-recorded conversation which the complainant had with the co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat ). A trap was laid by the officials of CBI and the co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat) was, after having been paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 11. 06. 2003, apprehended on the spot. He was produced before the Special Judge on 12. 06. 2003.
( 3 ) MR Mittal drew my attention to the disclosure statement of co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat) recorded on 11. 06. 2003. In the disclosure statement, it is stated that the co-accused (Ram Singh Rawat) had developed close proximity with the petitioner as also with one Mr S. K. Sharma who was posted as the Assistant assessor and Collector in the concerned office. It is also stated in the disclosure statement that he (R. S. Rawat) started assisting the petitioner (R. K. Sehrawat) in his official work as the latter was overburdened. It is stated that R. S. Rawat used to maintain the files of the petitioner (R. K. Sehrawat) and was very well acquainted with the record in his possession. It was also stated that R. K. Sehrawat had been transferred out of the office in May, 2003, but he had not given charge to the new person. Mr Mittal specifically drew my attention to the following portion of the disclosure statement:-
"i used to give the amount of bribe taken from various persons to Shri R. K. Sharma, Aandc who used to give my share to me and also to other officials of the office including Sh. R. K. Sehrawat. I don't know whether Sh. S. K. Sharma AAandc used to give the amount of bribe or a part of that to Dy. Assessor and collector. "
The above portion of the disclosure statement was stressed upon by Mr Mittal to indicate that the key person was Mr S. K. Sharma, but Mr S. K. Sharma was not being prosecuted by the. Mr Mittal then referred to the statement made by r. S. Sehrawat before the Special Judge on 12. 06. 2003. The statement as recorded in the order of the Special Judge reads as under:-
"i have heard the Ld. P. P. as well as the accused and his Counsel. The accused states that he used to collect money and hand over to AAandc Mr. S. K. Sharma and use
REFERRED TO : Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.