Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Alok Pant – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRR NO. 211 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Mr. R.K. Handa, Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Ms. Gauri Handa, Mr. Ajay Partap Singh and Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocates; For the Petitioner
For the Respondents: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana assisted by HC Jagbir Singh.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Charges framed against petitioner for demanding bribe - Allegation of Rs. 1,60,000/- as illegal gratification for allotment of plot; Rs. 50,000/- given in a trap; FIR lodged by complainant - Clear evidence of connivance between accused despite recovery from co-accused; receipt for earnest money deemed unreliable - No justification for discharge; charge framing upheld. (Paras 2, 6, 20, 21)
(B) Sanction for prosecution - Sanction declined earlier does not preclude subsequent grant if fresh examination warrants it; an error in prior sanction process does not allow discharge at charge framing stage. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order to frame charges for corruption related to illegal gratification for land leasing. An FIR was lodged after a trap showed the petitioner’s involvement. The petitioner argued absence of direct recovery from him, but evidence supported complicity.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s arguments did not outweigh the evidence linking him to the case; the trial court’s decision to frame charges was vindicated.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was rightfully charged despite non-recovery of money from him, and was the earlier sanction invalid for future proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that sufficiency of evidence at the charge stage does not require rigorous trial standards; evidence was adequate to raise suspicion.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of corruption against petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's grounds for challenging charges. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analysis on the evidence and arguments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. discussion on sanction and legal precedents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. decision on evidence sufficiency for charges. (Para 13 , 20) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The petitioner assails order dated 2.12.2022 passed by the trial Court vide which charges have been ordered to be framed against the petitioner for offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 19.11.2020, the complainant Harish Kumar lodged a complaint with the Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak alleging therein that Nasir, Rent Controller, Waqf Board, Rohtak and Alok Pant, Estate Officer, Waqf Board, Rohtak were demanding an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- as illegal gratification so as to forward his case to the Head Office at Ambala for allotment of a plot measuring 220 square yards. It is alleged that the said accused were asking him to make an initial payment of Rs.80,000/- and to pay the balance amount subsequently but the said deal had been settled so as to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the first instance and to pay the remaining Rs. 50,000/- later. Pursuant to receipt of said information, FIR was lodged and a trap was laid to catch the accused red-handed. It is further the case of prosecution that on the same evening, the complainant went to the office of Waqf Board along-with currency notes worth Rs. 50,000/-, whose serial numbers had already been noted down and passed on the same to accused. Immediately, thereafter, the raiding party stormed into the room and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from co-accused Nasir, Rent Collector while Alok Pant was also found sitting there. The matter was investigated and challan was presented. The petitioner Alok Pant moved an application dated 11.7.2022 (Annexure P-12) before the Special Court, Rohtak seeking his discharge. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure P-13). The trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner vide order dated 2.12.2022, which has been challenged before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 2.12.2022 on the following grounds :-
(i) that the tainted currency notes were never recovered from the petitioner and that it is the co-accused Nasir, Rent Controller, who was found in possession of the same;
(ii) that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been given by the complainant to co-accused Nasir as earnest money for leasing out a plot to the complainant and that as a matter of fact receipt dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure P-4) had also been issued by the co-accused to the complainant;
(iii) that when the matter was sent to the Haryana Waqf Board for according sanction to prosecute the accused, a three member fact-finding Committee was constituted, which gave a clean-chit to both the accused and vide its report dated 15.3.2021 (Annexure P-6) and accordingly wrote a letter dated 25.3.2021 (Annexure P-7) to Director General, State Vigilance Bureau Haryana to cancel the FIR lodged against officials of the Waqf Board and that in these circumstances according of sanction subsequently by the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 17.1.2022, without there being any fresh evidence was not justified;
(iv) that the impugned order dated 2.12.2022 is a non-speaking order.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has submitted that it is a case where the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and specific allegations of demand of bribe are also there against him and that since he was present along with co-accused when co-accused was caught red handed while in possession of the currency notes, the complicity of the petitioner is clearly evident. It has further been submitted that re
