Back
2019 Supreme(All) 812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, J.
Pankaj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
CBI/ACB - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 9258 of 2019
Decided on : 05-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Vikas Srivastava, Adv., Gyan Prakash, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to evaluate material at the stage of framing charges and the decision on the correctness of allegations against the accused in the trial.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Discharge Application - Sections 120B I.P.C. & 7, 13(2)r/w/13(1)D of P.C. Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence collected against the applicant under Sections 120B I.P.C. & 7, 13(2)r/w/13(1)D of P.C. Act and emphasized the need for allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence during the trial. The judgment referenced the legal principles from Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of U.P. and Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, highlighting the evaluation of material at the stage of framing charges and the decision on the correctness of allegations in the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was charged under Sections 120B I.P.C. & 7, 13(2)r/w/13(1)D of P.C. Act for demanding illegal gratification. The trial court rejected the discharge application after finding prima facie evidence against the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material available on record to necessitate the trial of the applicant, emphasizing the need for allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence collected against the applicant, the framing of charges, and the evaluation of material at the stage of framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evaluation of material at the stage of framing charges should not delve into the probative value of the evidence, and the correctness of allegations against the accused should be decided only in the trial.
Final Decision: The application lacked merits and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing for C.B.I. and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption C.B.I., Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, wherein the discharge application moved by the appellant in special case No. 02 of 2017, registered under Sections 120B I.P.C. & 7, 13(2)r/w/13(1)D of P.C. Act, Ghaziabad in pursuance of Crime No./F.I.R. No. RC 1202016A0010/2016, dated 23.08.2016 has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the First Information Report was registered on 23.08.2016 in pursuance of a complaint dated 22.08.2016 to C.B.I./ A.C.B., Ghaziabad alleging that the applicant has demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant Umesh Chandra for handing over/delivery of the aforesaid auction of trees. The applicant was arrested by the police and thereafter, he applied for bail and his bail was granted by this Court. The chargesheet was submitted against the applicant along with co-accused R.S. Waldia who was his subordinate by the C.B.I. on 21.10.2016 for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC. The applicant has moved a discharge application before the trial court which was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.07.2018.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has carved out the grounds for discharging the applicant as has been mentioned by him in para No. 40 of the affidavit filed in support of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"I. That in his complaint dated 22.8.16 to ACB/CBI, Ghaziabad against Dr. Pankaj Kumar (Sr. DFM/MB), complainant Umesh Chandra was stated that on delay of file pending before Pankaj Kumar he met him in his office on 18.08.2016 (D-2). Contrary to this Umesh Chandra himself has requested vide his letter dated 09.08.2016 (D-7 page-3) to hand over 210 trees on 18.8.2016. Hence there is no question of delay here on 18.8.16. The issue of delay arises only after 18.8.16. Therefore, the whole allegation is fabricated and conspired.
II. That verification report produced in the chargesheet (D-3) in which conversation transcript presented is totally mismatched and differ from Transcript of Verification (D-8) and also transcript presented in PW-2 statement (page 3 &4). In fact, CBI has presented doctored voice recording and transcript later on.
III. That presented Transcript of verification is of 13.42 minutes in which the conversation between Umesh Chandra and applicant shown starting from 6:10 minute and end with 13:42 minutes, total conversation between two person here in 7:32 minutes. While PW-2 in his statement states that Umesh Chandra came out from the office of Dr. Pankaj Kumar 20 minutes later. An absolutely fake narrative by KM Yadav.
IV. That Transcript of Verification (D-8) were prepared and verified by Vipin Kumar Shukla (SSO/Accounts) and Ratan Kumar (SSO/Accounts) on 16.9.16, while CBI had already sent original sealed memory SD card to Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi on 04.09.16 (D-12). In fact C.B.I. has presented doctored voice recording and transcript in the chargesheet.
V. That moreover, the forwarding letter and certificate to Director, CFSL, New Delhi were also forged signed in the name of Sh. Ragvendra Vatsa, SP/CBI/ACB/GZB. While his stamp has been used all over (D-12).
VI. That as per available records the so called trap proceedings were never done in IQ, Head Post Office, Moradabad and Circuit House, Moradabad. Their rooms were never booked by CBI officials for any purpose between 22.8.16 and 23.8.16.
VII. That as per Umesh Chandra statement on (PW-1) page 8 para 2 he was not allowed to carry anything with him except mobile phone, spectacle and bribe money during proceeding for trap t
