IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Singh And Other - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi And Other - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 996 of 2021 and Crl.M.A. 5072 of 2021
Decided On : 24-08-2021
Section 7 PC Act - Charges framed against petitioner and co-accused SI Amit Kumar - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 7/8/13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 7 PC Act prior to its amendment by Act No. 16/2018 and referred to relevant case laws to establish the legal framework applied in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in CC No. 335/2019 by the learned Special Judge, PC Act, ACB-01, Central District, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi. The case involved allegations of a public servant demanding gratification and the framing of charges under Section 120B IPC & Sections 7/13(l)(d) of the PC Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the framing of charges against the petitioner and co-accused SI Amit Kumar under Section 120B IPC & Sections 7/13(l)(d) of the PC Act, citing grave suspicion and the legal framework for establishing a prima facie case.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 7 PC Act prior to its amendment by Act No. 16/2018, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case for framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the interpretation of Section 7 PC Act prior to its amendment by Act No. 16/2018 and referred to relevant case laws to establish the legal framework applied in reaching its decision. It also emphasized the power of the Judge 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.
Final Decision: The court found no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order, upheld the framing of charges, and dismissed the petition along with the pending application.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in CC No. 335/2019 by the learned Special Judge, PC Act, ACB-01, Central District, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi whereby charges were framed against the petitioner and co-accused SI Amit Kumar in FIR No. 5/2018 registered under Sections 7/8/13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') at Police Station Vigilance, Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order are as under:-
"1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Surender Singh gave a hand written complaint to Insp. Ajay Tyagi at PS Vigilance in the presence of panch witness Sh.Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani on 23.05.2018 alleging that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. HR-46D-5396. It is further stated that Jasvir, driver left for Madras from New Green Transport, Rampura in the aforesaid vehicle loaded with goods on 07.05.2018. It is further stated that the said vehicle was stopped at the instance of Sh. Shekhar (owner of New Green Transport) who lodged a complaint against the complainant at PS Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, on 16.05.2018, Sh. Shekhar had taken the complainant to PS Punjabi Bagh where accused SI Amit Kumar met who threatened to send the complainant to jail if his demand of Rs. Five Lakh is not fulfilled. On the next day accused SI Amit Kumar obtained Rs.2,50,000/-from the complainant at the PS and asked the complainant to pay the balance amount on the next day. Thereafter, on 18.05.2018, the complainant has further given Rs. 30,000/- to accused SI Amit Kumar who warned the complainant and asked him to pay the remaining amount till 21.05.2018. Thereafter, the complainant reached at the PS alongwith Rs.50,000/- (25 currency notes of Rs.2,000/- each) and made a complaint on 23.05.2018 which was signed by panch witness Ramesh Chander Kesharwani and the serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the aforesaid GC notes and demo was given to the complainant before proceeding for raid. Thereafter, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to the complainant which was kept by the complainant in his right side pocket of pant and was briefed to keep the panch witness alongwith him so that he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, the complainant made a telephonic call to accused SI Amit Kumar who asked the complainant to meet Shekhar. Thereafter, the raiding team including RO Insp. Ajay Tyagi, complainant Surender Singh, panch witness Ramesh Chander Kesharwani, HC Rakesh, HC Tar a Chand, HC Kanwar Singh and driver ASI Amardeep left in government vehicle no. DL-1CJ-5549 and reached near PS Panjabi Bagh at about 02:30 pm. It is further stated that the complainant and panch witness were sent to PS Punjabi Bagh and raiding team remained outside the PS Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, complainant called on the mobile phone of the Shekhar who asked the complainant to reach at the office ofShekhar which is situated at Rampura and accordingly the complainant alongwth the raiding team reached at the office of Shekhar at about 03:30 pm. Complainant and panch witness went at the first floor and other staff remained near the office. Thereafter, after 35-40 minutes panch witness came down and made a pre-appointed signal to the raiding team and the raiding team reached at the first floor where the panch witness told that the person wearing Kakhi pant and yellow shirt had obtained Rs.50,000/- from the complainant from his right hand and that person was apprehended by the RO, the said person disclosed his name as SI Amit Kumar. Thereafter, on the personal search of accused SI Amit Kumar, currency notes of Rs.50,000/- (25 currency notes of Rs.2,000/-) was recovered from his right hand, the serial number of th
Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1976) 3 SCC 46
Mahesh Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as AIR 1955 SC 70
The legal framework for establishing a prima facie case and the interpretation of Section 7 PC Act prior to its amendment by Act No. 16/2018.
The accused public servant’s demand for bribe through a co-accused constituted a prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite being absent during the bribe exchange.
Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act require a pending official duty and a clear demand for gratification, which were not present in this case.
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was established in this case.
The court established that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reaffirming the need for credible evidence from witnesses. The ....
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
The standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is met when evidence establishes exigent demands backed by corroborative testimony, with appropriate p....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish charges without evidence of demand.
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.