Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 1156
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
JAIPUR BENCH
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA. J.
Kishore Bhagtani – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan. - Respondent
Cr. Rev. P.No.1112 and 1052 of 2008.
Decided On:- 12-11-2008
Raghunandan Khandelwal & Mahesh Gupta, Kishore Bhagtani, Anurag Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar Singhal, for Petitioner; K.K. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for State.
The court emphasized the importance of considering evidence in detail during the trial and not interfering with the framing of charges at the initial stage.
Headnote:
Embezzlement - Framing charges under Section 120 B IPC, Section 7(13)(2), and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, along with other co-accused, were employees of BSNL and were accused of embezzlement. The CBI filed a charge sheet against them under Section 120 B IPC, Section 7, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court framed charges against the petitioners, leading to the filing of revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petitions, stating that there was satisfactory evidence against the petitioners, and the trial court had appropriately framed charges against them. The court emphasized that the evidence could be considered in detail during the trial and not at the stage of framing charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the admissibility of evidence and statements made by co-accused after being trapped and nabbed by the CBI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the trial court's decision to frame charges should not be interfered with at the initial stage, and the evidence should be considered in detail during the trial. The court also highlighted the statutory obligation of the High courts to not interfere with framing charges merely on hypothesis and far-fetched reasons.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
These two revision petitions arise from the common order dated July 23, 2008 of the Special Judge (Printing and Stationary Embezzlement cases) and CBI Cases, Jaipur framing charges against the petitioners Kishore Bhagtani and Dharmendra Kumar Singhal under Section 120 B IPC read with sections 7(13) (2) and 13 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they are being disposed by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners Kishore Bhagtani and Dharmendra Kumar Singhal and other co-accused are employees of BSNL. A committee comprising of Santosh Kumar Meena, Deputy General Manager (Administration), Kishore Bhagtani Area Manager (Central), D.KSinghal DGM (Finance) and O.P. Garg, JTO (General Administration Wing) was constituted vide order dated March 4,2005 with the approval of the Principal General Manager Telecom District Jaipur. This Committee was to submit recommendations for private hospitals for their em-panelement in BSNL. The Committee was also supplied a list of private/trust hospitals of J aipur City and the task of the committee was to give recommendations for each of the hospitals from this list by visiting each of them and ascertaining their services/ facilities. About 60-65 hospitals were to be visited by the Committee. The said Committee started its work on April 12, 2005 and till April 23,2005 about 45 hospitals were inspected. On April 22, 2005 Santosh Kumar Meena and O.P. Gargmembers of the committee went to Dr. Naresh Goyal Orthopaedic Hospital (whose Incharge Dr. Naresh Goyal is complainant herein). The complainant lodged FIR with CBI on April 23, 2005. It was alleged that O.P. Garg, one of the member of the Committee contacted him to pay bribe for the em-panelement of his hospital. The complainant was asked to confirm the demand of bribe from Santosh Kumar Meena in front of witness and the same was also recorded. It is alleged that a pre-trap memo was prepared at the office of SP, SPE, CBI Jaipur on April 23, 2005, an the evening of April 23, 2005 SP CBI caught a.p. Garg, one of the member of the Committee red-handed while accepting bribe from the complainant at the complainants Hospital in Mansarover. Mr. Garg on interrogation told that he was acting on behalf of the Committee and the bribe money collected was to be given to Santosh Meena. CBI then asked O.P. Garg to take the money to Santosh Meena, at his residence in C Scheme, and caught Santosh Kumar Meena red handed, while accepting money from O.P. Garg. CBI then asked O.P. Garg to contact other two Committee members Kishore Bhagtani and Dharmendra Kumar Singhal one by one over phone using the mobile of Santosh Kumar Meena. After investigation, the CBI Jaipur submitted charge sheet against the members of the Committee Santosh Kumar Meena, O.P. Garg, Kishore Bhagtani and A.K. Singhal on May 25, 2006 under section 120 B IPC, sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The trial court heard the arguments of both the parties on July 15, 2008 and ordered to frame charge against the Committee members on July 23, 2008. The trial court discharged the petitioners Kishore Bhagtani and D.K. Singhal from the substantial charges for the offence under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and frame charge against them with the aid of Section 120 B IPC read with section 7, section 13(2) and section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act only. Against the said order these revision petitions have been filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Mr. Raghunandan Khandelwal appearing on behalf of the petitioner Kishore Bhagtani and Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Dharmendra Kumar Singhal contended that the Hospital of the complainant was visited on April 22, 2005 by Santosh Kumar Meena and O.P. Garg only. The learned counsel stated that the trial court has not taken note o
