Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004988

$~37

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CRL.REV.P. 345/2018, CRL.M.A. 7333/2018, CRL.M.A. 7334/2018

CRL.M.A. 41190/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4294/2020

ANIL DUTT SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Geeta Lutrha, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Manoj Kr. Dwivedi & Mr. Mayank

Pandey, Advs.

versus

STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. N.S. Bajwa, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

Talwant Singh, J.:

1. The present revision petition has been filed against order of framing

of charge dated 05.07.2017 and the charges being framed on 10.07.2017 by

the learned Special Court in case FIR No. 51/2014 registered under Section

8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to ‘PC Act’

read with Section 419/120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to ‘IPC').

1.1

The relevant portion of the order on charge is reproduced hereunder:-

Signed By:HARIOM

Signing Date:21.11.2022

13:28:31

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004988

behalf of accused JE Khushi Ram”.

xxx

Signed By:HARIOM

Signing Date:21.11.2022

13:28:31

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004988

1.2

The grounds of challenge to the framing of charge are that the

petitioner did not make any call except one, i.e., 15 days earlier on

09.06.2014 from the date of the complaint in which there is no demand and

threats as stated by the complainant; the FIR contradicts the entire story of

the complainant Mr. Joginder Singh got recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

the Trial Court fell in error to observe that accused was caught red handed

with illegal gratification at the place appointed by him; the Trial Court had

gone through only a call dated 24.06.2014 made by the complainant at 2.24

p.m. without connecting the contents of other calls dated 23.06.2014 and

24.06.2014, which do not constitute any crime; the learned Trial Court has

wrongly observed that relation of the accused and the complainant is a

matter of trial; the learned Trial Court has ignored the conversation dated

18.06.2014 between the complainant and the petitioner, which shows that

they were having friendly relations and; the learned Trial Court formed

opinion only on the basis of transcripts and not on the basis of audio

recording, although it is alleged that mobile phone of the petitioner was on

audio recoding mode but no such call regarding fixing of meeting has been

described in the charge-sheet; the learned Trial Court has erred to form

opinion in framing charge under Section 120B/384/170 and Section 7/13(2)

PC Act; the prosecution has failed to explain as to how Section 419 IPC has

been invoked as per the complaint of the complainant as he has described

the petitioner as JE, whereas, the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have

been impersonating as JE, came out only during interrogation; the raiding

team had raided the petitioner even before receiving the information and a

wrong DD has been mentioned; the departure entry is vague; FIR was not

Signed By:HARIOM

Signing Date:21.11.2022

13:28:31

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004988

registered before conducting the raid; no preliminary inquiry was conducted;

the petitioner is not a government servant so, PC Act cannot be invoked, and

certain other minor grounds are also being taken.

2. Notice was issued.

2.1

Status Report has been filed.

2.2

It has been mentioned that petitioner had filed a complaint before the

Police Complaint Authority (PCA) alleging therein that he was falsely

implicated in case under PC Act and he was illegally detained because he

was arrested in FIR No. 51/2014. The PCA vide order dated 30.07.2018 has

rejected the complaint of Shri Anil Dutt Sharma.

2.3

In the written submissions submitted by the petitioner he claims to be

an RTI activist, a public interest litigator and a whistle blower, who was

falsely implic