IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5514 of 2021
Decided On : 20-03-2023
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B of IPC against the petitioner, a politician, for allegedly demanding undue advantage from the husband of the then-suspended mayor of Jaipur, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, on behalf of a company named BVG in exchange for the release of pending bills. The court held that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner were not made out, as there was no evidence that he had demanded or accepted any undue advantage, or that he had acted as a representative of either the company or the Nagar Nigam. The court also found that the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was 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.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence that the petitioner had demanded or accepted any undue advantage, or that he had acted as a representative of either the company or the Nagar Nigam. The court also found that the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: Whether the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner were made out.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner were not made out, as there was no evidence that he had demanded or accepted any undue advantage, or that he had acted as a representative of either the company or the Nagar Nigam. The court also found that the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising thereof qua the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 229/2021 registered at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Siu Jaipur for offences under Sections 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising thereof.
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 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. The pendrive was then kept safe with the ASP in an almirah. Thereafter, as the data recorded in the pendrive was related to the facts stated in the preliminary enquiry, the pendrive was seized by the ACB on 11.06.2021.
4. Photos of the persons present and identifiable in the recording were downloaded from the internet, stored in a CD-R and sent to FSL for testing. The second CD-R was also sealed in an envelope for the purpose of investigation. Thereafter, the transcript of the video/audio recording contained in the pendrive was made and photocopies of the related documents were procured. The pendrive as well as one of the CD-R(s) were sent to the FSL, Jaipur for opinion. The pendrive was further sent to FSL, Telangana, Hyderabad for testing of the audio contained in the pendrive post discussion with senior officials of the Bureau asking whether there is consistency in the audio saved in the pendrive and whether there is tampering, mixing or editing done in the said audio. 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 and the two representatives of BVG Company, namely Mr. Omkar Sapre and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Choudhary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner if the contents of the FIR are read with the evidence collected during the course of i
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal
State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan and Ors.
State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
AI
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....
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....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and electronic evidence must comply with Section 65-B of t....
Charges must be supported by sufficient evidence; mere assumptions cannot justify the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
The court ruled that allegations in an FIR must disclose a prima facie case for investigation, and mere recovery of cash without evidence linking the accused to a bribery transaction does not suffice....
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
The court established that prima facie evidence of a bribe demand is sufficient to justify an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that quashing an FIR should be an exception rat....
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.