Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Omkar Sapre, S/o. Shri Manohar Sapre - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1651 of 2022
Decided On : 20-03-2023
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 2018 - SECTION 7, 8, 12 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CALL DATA RECORDS - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PRIMA FACIE CASE - COGNIZANCE - SECTION 482 CRPC - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - COURT'S DISCRETION - ENDS OF JUSTICE:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Admin Head of BVG Company, sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, attempted to bribe the husband of the then-suspended mayor of Jaipur to secure payment of outstanding bills owed by the Nagar Nigam to BVG Company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the electronic evidence, including a video clip, was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, there was other material, including call data records and circumstantial evidence, indicating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime. The court held that a prima facie case was established against the petitioner and that the trial court had rightly taken cognizance of the offenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the electronic evidence, including the video clip, was admissible in the absence of compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the call data records and other circumstantial evidence were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner? 3. Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the offenses and proceeding towards hearing on the point of charge?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the electronic evidence was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, which requires proper certification and examination of electronic evidence. 2. The court found that the call data records, showing communication between the petitioner and the husband of the mayor, along with other circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner's efforts to secure payment of outstanding bills, were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. 3. The court held that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in taking cognizance of the offenses and proceeding towards hearing on the point of charge, as there were sufficient grounds to believe that the petitioner had committed the alleged offenses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was made out. The court directed the trial court to provide ample opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections and grounds during the hearing on the point of charge and to pass a reasoned, speaking order thereafter.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who is the Admin Head of BVG Company, in relation to alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (!) .
The case involves allegations that the petitioner was involved in discussions and activities aimed at facilitating the payment of outstanding bills owed by Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur to BVG Company, which was pending for a substantial amount (!) (!) .
The electronic evidence, specifically a video clip, was deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act; however, other evidence such as call data records and circumstantial evidence indicated the petitioner’s involvement (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged that the call data records and other circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner’s communications with the mayor’s husband and the mayor herself, suggest active participation in the alleged criminal activities (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that it is not the role of the High Court to re-examine the truthfulness of the allegations at this stage but to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed. The investigation and the trial court have already found sufficient prima facie evidence, and the proceedings were rightly initiated (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in taking cognizance of the case and that there are no prevailing circumstances to interfere with the ongoing proceedings, as doing so could disrupt the process of justice (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the petition for quashing, directing the petitioner to raise all objections at the appropriate stage during the trial proceedings, with the trial court expected to provide fair opportunity for such objections and to pass a reasoned order thereafter (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the investigation revealed involvement of the petitioner, and that the collection of evidence, including electronic and circumstantial evidence, supports the continuation of the proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The order concluded with the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, while emphasizing that the petitioner is free to contest the proceedings at the appropriate stage, and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning and decision regarding the maintainability of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, based on the evidence and legal principles discussed.
ORDER :
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 01/2022 titled State Vs. Rajaram and Another pending before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, No. 1, Jaipur for offences under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 qua the petitioner.
2. This case has come up for hearing by virtue of being listed before this Court as per the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to be filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASP’) at the Headquarter, ACB stating therein that an overview and analysis of a video clip which was being broadcasted on Zee Media Television Channel on 10.06.2021 revealed that there was a bill amount of Rs. 276 crores which was to be paid by Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur to a company named BVG in exchange for their cleaning services. It is also stated by him that there is conversation between representatives of BVG company and Mr. Rajaram Gurjar, husband of the then suspended mayor (herein after referred to as the 'mayor'), Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur regarding payment of 10 percent of the pending bill amount, i.e. Rs. 20 crores, to Mr. Rajaram, in exchange of which he would get the pending bills cleared. It was felt by the ASP that a case of taking undue advantage by using his personal influence with a public servant was prima facie made out against Mr. Rajaram Gurjar. Upon filing of the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry No. 03/2021 was registered and the investigation was handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Unit, ACB, Jaipur who had filed the complaint at the Headquarter in the first instance on 10.06.2021. On the same day, as per the FIR, the ASP received a SanDisk pendrive from reliable sources containing the audio-visual recording of the clip that was broadcasted on social media and television in which the representatives of BVG Company, including the petitioner, and Mr. Rajaram Gurjar are conversing regarding exchange of bribe in order to get the payment of pending bills cleared. When the audio and video recording contained in the said pendrive was listened to and watched by the ASP in the computer of the department, it was found that the conversation so recorded fell in the category of corrupt behaviour. Eventually, the investigation conducted in pursuance of the preliminary enquiry led to the lodging of FIR No. 229/2021 at police station CPS ACB, Jaipur on 28.06.2021 against the present petitioner as well as against Mr. Rajaram Gurjar, husband of the then suspended mayor of Jaipur, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, the other representative of BVG Company, namely Mr. Sandeep Kumar Choudhary and against another co-accused, namely Mr. Nimba Ram. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented by the agency before learned Special Judge against the petitioner and Mr. Rajaram and investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) against other two co-accused, namely Sandeep and Nimba Ram, and others. The learned Special Judge went ahead and took cognizance against the petitioner and Mr. Rajaram for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2018') vide order dated 31.01.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner in the court below, then it would lead to gross abuse of process of court and would result in complete failure of justice. The ingredients essential to constitute the alleged offences against the petitioner are conspicuously missing and the petitioner has been made a fall boy in the political feud between the ruling party in the state and the party in opposition. The petitioner is bearing the outcome of victimisation of the com
In a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings, the High Court should not embark on an enquiry to examine the truthfulness and genuineness of allegations in the FIR....
While considering a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry to examine the truthfulness and genuineness of the a....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a prima facie case based on ample evidence in corruption cases, and the need for judicial officers to be trained in handling cases under the Pre....
Specific allegations of being caught red-handed accepting a bribe do not justify quashing the F.I.R. or the entire criminal proceeding.
Charges must be supported by sufficient evidence; mere assumptions cannot justify the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Presumption under PC Act Section 20 from positive phenolphthalein test; quashing FIR not warranted in nascent investigation stage.
Point of law: when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved., no infererwe can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
