Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3456
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR, J
OM PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRLR / 250 / 2018
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, PP, Mr. Rakesh Matoria
The court established that mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient to prove corruption charges without evidence of demand and acceptance, emphasizing the necessity of a clear agreement for conspiracy.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Indian Penal Code - Section 120-B - Accused petitioners challenged framing of charges for corruption and conspiracy - Court found prima facie evidence against one petitioner for demanding bribe, while the other was discharged due to lack of evidence of conspiracy - The court emphasized that mere recovery of money is insufficient to prove charges without evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe. (Paras 1, 12, 14)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Definition and requirements - The court reiterated that an agreement between parties to commit an illegal act is essential for establishing conspiracy, and mere knowledge or discussion is insufficient. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from a complainant in a disciplinary proceeding. The complainant reported the demand to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, leading to a trap and subsequent arrest of the petitioners. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence to support charges against one petitioner for demanding a bribe, while the other lacked evidence of conspiracy and was discharged. (Paras 12, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether there was sufficient evidence to frame charges against the petitioners and the legal standards for establishing conspiracy. (Paras 6, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prima facie evidence must exist to support charges, emphasizing that mere recovery of money does not suffice without proof of demand and acceptance of bribe. (Paras 7, 12)
Result: Criminal revision petition allowed for one petitioner; the other petitioner's charges affirmed.
Order
Judgement Reserved on : 22.08.2024 Judgement Pronounced on : 09.09.2024
1. Both the petitioners above named are accused in Sessions Case No. 1/2017 arising out of FIR No. 321/2014 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Sriganganagar. The petitioners are aggrieved by refusal of their prayer, by the learned trial Judge, to discharge them by order 9.02.2018 and framing of charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Respondent no. 2 Kashi Ram filed a complaint before ACB, Sriganganagar stating therein that respondent no. 2/complainant was a driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding and punishment was to be awarded against him by the Chief Manager of the Department where proceeding was pending. The complainant appeared before the Chief Manager Sukhram Kadwasara (co- accused). Petitioner Om Prakash was a Lower Division Clerk working in the office of General Manager. The complainant met Om Prakash, who after going through the records of the departmental proceedings talked to the Chief Manager and informed to the complainant that if the complainant pays Rs.22,000/-, lessor punishment would be awarded in the departmental proceeding otherwise there is chances of dismissal.
3. Since the complainant was not agreeable to bribe the public servants, he made a complaint on 11.9.2014 to the DSP of ACB Bikaner. A primary inquiry of such demand was made and on 12.9.2014 trap was arranged. The officials reached the office of petitioner Om Prakash. The planted money of Rs.22,000/- in different denomination was presented to Om Prakash in his office and Om Prakash directed the complainant to pay it to petitioner Anil Kumar, who was also a lower division clerk newly recruited and was sitting by the side of the table of Om Prakash. Money was received by petitioner Anil and Anil put it in his pocket. The authorities arrested Anil and Om Prakash at the spot. Petitioner Anil stated that he had received the money on the instruction of Om Prakash available there and he is not aware for what purpose money was given. He further stated that no work of the complainant was pending with him. During investigation, evidence of trap witnesses was recorded and on completion of other formalities, charge sheet was submitted after sanction of the competent authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. HS Sidhu submits that the order of charge has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind on the material available on record. It is complainant’s case, which would be evident from the charge sheet that first he met Mr. Sukhram, the General Manager before whom the matter was pending. Mr. Sukhram threatened to dismiss him. Thereafter, Mr. Sukhram called Om Prakash and asked the complainant to go out. After some time, Om Prakash came out and put the demand before the complainant. Therefore, no work of the complainant was pending before petitioner Om Prakash or petitioner Anil. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance of judgment on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutt Vs. State (Government of NCT, Delhi), decided on 17.3.2023, after answer of the reference by the Constitution Bench in the same matter.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that a raving inquiry is not permissible at this stage nor evidentiary value can be weighed. Since demand was made by petitioner Om Prakash and he accepted the bribe money through petitioner Anil with intent to assist another public servant before whom work of the complainant was pending, the order of charge need not be interfered with.
6. It is settled law that at the stage of charge, the Court has to see whether prima facie offences are made out whereunder charges are to be framed. To examine this fact, only prosecution material collected during investigation is to be looked into and not the material
