IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 724 of 2022

------

Praveen Kumar

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. ....

....

....

Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A. IV

CAV ON: 03.02.2023.

PRONOUNCED ON: 13.02.2023

Instant petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and

correctness of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.1558 of 2021

arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2015 (Vigilance Case No.52 of

2015) under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereby

and whereunder the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, has been

rejected.

2.

The complaint lodged by one Krishna Mohan Kumar, is the basis of

the case. As per the case of prosecution, he was a nominated supplier of

boulder under MNREGA Scheme for construction of road and had submitted

bill of Rs.49,000/- before the petitioner for payment. It is alleged that the

petitioner had demanded Rs.3500/- as 7% of total bill amount as illegal

gratification for clearing the bill.

3.

A preliminary enquiry was conducted and on verification, the

allegation was found to be true and thereafter, after completing formalities, a

trap team was constituted and the raid was conducted in the office of petitioner

on 04.08.2015, who was posted as Block Development Officer. Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Baranwas Tirkey and other members

reached the office of B.D.O. at 11.00 A.M. The petitioner/accused accepted

the bribe amount of Rs.3500/- and he was caught red-handed with the

phenolphthalein smeared currency notes regarding which vigilance case was

registered.

4.

Further, case of the prosecution is that a large mob was gathered from

nearby places at the instance of one Computer Operator, Naushad. The mob

forcibly entered into the chamber of the BDO, where the petitioner was

detained and the items of seizure were destroyed and the petitioner was

released from police custody. F.I.R. regarding the incidence was registered

2

being Chanho P.S. Case No.82 of 2015 under Sections 143, 147, 150, 341,

342, 204, 201, 216, 225, 353, 427, 504, 505, 120B of the I.P.C. The police on

investigation submitted final form in this case for want of evidence.

5.

The Vigilance Department submitted its charge sheet No.29 of 2017

on 26.09.2017 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act.

6.

After charge sheet, cognizance in this case was earlier taken on

07.11.2017 which was challenged before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2337 of

2017 and by order dated 25.11.2019, the matter was remanded back to the

learned Court below for passing order afresh.

7.

The learned Court below vide order dated 29.11.2019 took

cognizance against the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with

Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 of the

Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred a discharge petition before the

Court below which has been rejected and aggrieved by the order, instant

petition has been filed.

8.

The order rejecting petition for discharge has been impugned on the

ground that complainant had a personal grudge against the petitioner and the

present case is an outcome of that. The complainant was working as supplier

and broker in the said Block prior to posting of this petitioner and the order

restricting entry of brokers, middle men and anti-social elements by the

petitioner was the reason for filing of the present case. After assuming the

charge of office of Block Development Officer, the petitioner had issued office

order dated 13.0