High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Former Alwar Collector, Citing Lack of Evidence and Authority

Jaipur: In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has quashed criminal proceedings against Nannu Mal Pahadia , a former District Collector of Alwar , in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court, presided over by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA , found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential ingredients of the corruption charges, particularly the demand and acceptance of a bribe, and noted that the petitioner was not holding the relevant post when the complaint was filed.

The petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), sought to quash FIR No. 0140/2022, the subsequent charge-sheet, and the pending criminal case before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar , which alleged offences under Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed on April 22, 2022, by Iqbal Singh , a Power of Attorney holder for KCC Buildcon Private Limited, a company involved in constructing the Delhi- Badodra Expressway . The complainant alleged that the District Collector, Alwar ( Nannu Mal Pahadia ), and the Land Settlement Officer, Ashok Sankhla , were demanding monthly bribes (Rs. 4 lakh from the Collector, Rs. 50,000 from the LSO) for smooth construction work. He claimed they were pressuring him for four months' arrears (November 2021 to February 2022) and wished to catch them receiving the bribe.

Following the complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) initiated verification and trap proceedings. While a trap was conducted and an amount was allegedly recovered, the recovery was reportedly made from the Scooty of one Nitin Sharma , described as an aid to the co-accused Ashok Sankhla , not directly from the petitioner.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gariman Singh Rathore and Mr. S.G. Rajput , argued that on the date the complaint was made (April 22, 2022), the petitioner was no longer posted as District Collector, Alwar , having been transferred on April 13, 2022, and relieved on April 18, 2022. They contended that no work of the complainant's company was pending before him at that time. They further submitted that no bribe money was recovered from the petitioner, there was no reliable evidence of demand, and the alleged recovery from the co-accused's aid was not cogently linked to the petitioner. They also highlighted the lack of statements from company personnel regarding previous alleged payments and the absence of evidence of bribe payment in conversation transcripts.

Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amit Punia , representing the State, submitted that transcripts existed which indicated demand by the petitioner. He also argued that the trap was successful, and money recovered from the co-accused's aid was received on behalf of the petitioner.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court carefully reviewed the complaint, charge-sheet, and material on record. The court made several crucial observations:

1. Lack of Specific Demand: Examining the transcripts of conversations between the petitioner and the complainant, both on mobile and at the co-accused's residence, the court found "nothing specific as regards the demand of bribe by the accused petitioner."
2. No Evidence of Acceptance or Direct Link to Recovery: The court noted that during the trap, nothing was recovered from the petitioner's possession. The alleged recovery was from the aid of the co-accused, and the prosecution failed to provide evidence of any conversation or conspiracy between the petitioner and the co-accused regarding the demand or acceptance of the bribe.
3. Petitioner's Post Status at the Time of Complaint: Crucially, the court found that the petitioner had been transferred from the post of District Collector, Alwar , on April 13, 2022, and relieved on April 18, 2022. The complaint was filed on April 22, 2022. Therefore, on the date of the complaint, the petitioner was not holding the position relevant to the alleged demand for smooth construction work. The court stated, "...on the date i.e. on 22.04.2022 when the complainant has made the complaint... the accused petitioner was not even remained posted as District Collector, Alwar and therefore, neither there was any occasion for the accused petitioner to make any demand nor the complainant was to fulfill that demand because he was already transferred..."

The court relied on several precedents from the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court, emphasizing that proof of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for offences under Section 7 of the PC Act ( Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , A. Subair vs. State of Kerala , Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ). It reiterated that mere recovery of money, without proof of demand, is insufficient ( A. Subair , N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu ). The court also cited Bharat Lal Saini vs. State of Rajasthan , which held that Section 7 is not attracted if the public servant is not assigned the public duty claimed by the complainant.

The court observed that even if the prosecution story were believed, prosecuting the petitioner under the PC Act was not sustainable, suggesting it might, at most, be a case of cheating, but the basic ingredients for the PC Act offences were missing. The court also noted the complainant had filed similar complaints against other officers, raising the "possibility of foul play by complainant" to pressure public servants.

Citing State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy , the court affirmed its inherent power to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the court's process or where the ends of justice require it, particularly when the prosecution rests on lame or insufficient material.

Decision

Based on the comprehensive assessment of the evidence and legal principles, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to present concrete evidence of a specific bribe demand by the petitioner, acceptance of money by the petitioner, or the existence of any pending work before the petitioner at the relevant time.

The court found that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed , and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No./00000010/2024 pending before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar , arising out of FIR No. 0140/2022, along with the charge-sheet and all criminal proceedings qua the petitioner Nannu Mal Pahadia , were quashed and set aside .

This judgment underscores the critical importance of proving the foundational elements of demand and acceptance in corruption cases, alongside establishing that the public servant was in a position to perform or forbear from performing the public duty in question at the time of the alleged demand.