IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Nannu Mal Pahadia S/o Chhote Lal - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 835 Of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Sections 7, 7A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Quashing of FIR - Accused petitioner's request to quash FIR for alleged bribery and conspiracy - No evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe established - Accused not in position to influence complainant's work due to transfer prior to complaint - Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of bribery. (Paras 1, 10, 22, 34)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Definition and requirements - No evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds between accused parties - Prosecution's case lacks foundation for conspiracy charge. (Paras 29, 34)
Facts of the case:
The accused petitioner, previously a District Collector, was alleged to have demanded bribes for facilitating road construction work. The complaint was made after his transfer, and no bribe was recovered from him. (Paras 2, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found no specific demand for bribes or evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offences, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's case was unfounded. (Paras 22, 34)
Issues: Whether the accused made a demand for bribes and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. (Paras 10, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case. (Paras 10, 22)
Result: Criminal proceedings against the accused petitioner quashed.
Order :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 528 of the BNSS with the prayer to quash the FIR No. 0140/2022 dated 25.04.2022 registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Alwar-I, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 (for short ‘the amendment Act of 2018’) and 120B IPC, the charge-sheet No.188/2022 dated 15.06.2022 submitted by the ACB before the competent Court and further the criminal Misc. Case No./00000010/2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar (Raj.).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2022 complainant Iqbal Singh, who is Power of Attorney Holder for KCC Buildcon Private Limited (for short ‘the Company’) submitted a complaint before the Addl. Superintendent of Police, ACB, Alwar with the averments that he is looking after the road construction work for the company as regards Delhi-Badodra Expressway Green Field. It has been further stated in the complaint that the District Collector, Alwar, Nannu Mal Pahadia (petitioner) and the Land Settlement Officer Mr. Ashok Sankhla are demanding the bribe on monthly basis for smooth construction work of road. It is also stated that the District Collector, Alwar Mr. Pahadia is demanding Rs.4 lakh per month as a bribe and Mr. Ashok Sankhla is demanding Rs.50,000/- per month as a bribe and have said that the Company has not paid the money for the last four months for the period i.e. November 2021 to February 2022 and they are making pressure upon him to make the payment. It is also stated that now he does not want to give them bribe and want that they be caught red handed. The contents of the complaint made by the complainant are quoted as under:-
^mijksDr fo’k;kUrxZr esjk fuosnu gS fd us”kuy gkbos u- 148 N fnYyh& oMksnjk ,Dlizsl os xzhuQhYM lM+d fuekZ.k dk dk;Z gekjh dEiuh ds lhlh fcYMdkWu izk- fy- }kjk fd;k tk jgk gSA ftlesa eSa bdcky flag dEiuh }kjk dk;Z djus dk ikoj vkWQ vVksuhZ gksYMj gw¡A lM+d fuekZ.k ls lEcaf/kr foHkkxksa dk dk;Z ns[k jgk gw¡A bl dk;Z dks lqpk# :i ls fuckZ/k pyus nsus dh ,ot esa ftyk dyDVj vyoj Jheku uUuwey igkfM+;k vkSj Hkw&izca/k vf/kdkjh Jheku v”kksd lka[kyk th eq>ls izfrekg dh fj'or ekaxrs gSaA ftyk dyDVj igkfM+;k th 4¼pkj½ yk[k :i;s eUFkyh crkSj fj'or rFkk v”kksd lka[kyk th 50¼ipkl½ gtkj :i;s eUFkyh crkSj fj'or ekaxrs gSaA vkSj vc dg jgs gSa fd vkidks uoEcj 2021 ls Qjojh 2022 rd ds 4 ekg ds vius&vius eUFkyh ds iSls crkSj fj'or ds :i esa ekax jgs gS vkSj esjs Åij eUFkyh nsus dk ncko cuk jgs gSaA blds vykok gekjs fudV xzke ek.kdh rglhy jkex<+ ftyk vyoj esa LFkkfir LVksu ØS”kj dk;Z esa Hkh lg;ksx djus ,oa iz”kklfud vM+pu ugha Mkyus ds cnys esa nksuksa gh vf/kdkjh fj'or ekax jgs gSaA
eSa bu nksuksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dks eUFkyh@fj'or ugha nsdj bUgsa esjs ls eUFkyh@fj'or ysrs gq;s jaxs gkFkksa idMokuk pkgrk gw¡A esjh buls dksbZ jaft'k ugha gS vkSj uk gh dkbZ m/kkj ;k ysu&nsu ckdh gSA d`i;k dk;Zokgh djkus dk Je iznku djkosA**
On the aforesaid complaint, the ACB started the proceedings for making verification of the demand and to trap the accused. The trap proceedings were conducted and some amount as an alleged bribe is said to have been recovered from the Scooty of one Nitin Sharma, alleged to be the aid of the accused petitioner. N
3. On the basis of the complaint and the trap proceedings, the FIR No. 0140/2022 dated 25.04.2022 was registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Alwar-I, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC.
4. In the said case the accused petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation the police submitted the Final Report (charge-sheet). The accused was enlarged on bail and presently the matter is pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar after filing of the charge-sheet No.188/2022 dated 15.06.2022 for the of
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of tainted currency does not constitute an offence.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient fo....
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.