IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of considering a discharge application, the court must assume the truth of the prosecution's evidence and determine if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, without conducting a mini-trial.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No.146 of 2020 in connection with R.C. No. 17(S)/2013-R registered under section 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed for discharge of the petitioners from the criminal liability has been rejected by holding therein that there is sufficient prima-facie material available on record against the petitioner for the purpose of framing of charge for the alleged offences.

Facts

2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant case in brief reads as under:-

Prosecution case was initiated on written complaint by one Abhishek Kumar, alleging therein that the complainant and his mother had booked 2000 square feet of land of khata no. 155, plot no. 541 in Aishwarya Residency, II Phase, Pundag, Ranchi, of M/s. Sanjeevani Buildcon (P) Ltd. Complainant has paid Rs. 9 lakhs in connection with that but neither the land was provided to him nor his money was returned. After repeated demands Rs. 4.5 lakh was returned to him but the rest amount was not returned. Later on, two cheques of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs.1,22,000/- respectively was given to the complainant which returned unpaid on presentation. Despite repeated demands of the complainant his money was not returned.

On this written application an FIR dated 08.04.2012 was registered as Jagannathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case no. 96/12, for the offence under section 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The aforesaid case was subsequently been transferred for investigation to the CBI, ACB, Ranchi by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 15.01.2013 and accordingly the CBI has re-registered the case vide case no. RC/17(S)/2013-R under sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. against M/s Sanjivani Buildcon Private Limited, its directors and other co-accused.

4. After investigation of the case, the Charge-Sheet No. 13/2014 dated 30.09.2014 was submitted against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons under Section 120B read with Sections 420, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. It is alleged that the petitioner before this Court was the then Halka Karmachari at the relevant point of time posted at Ratu circle and he was looking after the Halka covering village Pundag. It is alleged that the petitioner in the capacity of the then Halka Karmachari, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi, recommended mutation of excess land of 39.49 out of actual holding of 35.55 (19+16.55) dismal of land with the connivance of other accused persons. It is further alleged that 16.55 dismal land was purchased by Smt. Anamika Nandi of M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and as against this 39.49 dismal land was sold to 09 different persons. Out of these 09 cases mutations of 04 cases were done on the recommendation of present petitioner.

6. It is further alleged that the present petitioner along with other accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy with private persons and abused their respective official positions and in pursuance thereof did excess mutation.

7. Accordingly, the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been received and cognizance of offence has been taken. Thereafter, the present petitioner had moved before this Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance vide Cr.M.P. No. 2867 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2019.

8. Consequently, during the trial, a discharge petition was filed by the present petitioner but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2020 which is assailed herein by way of the instant revision application.

Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner

9. Learned senior counsel appeared on behalf