Alok Kumar Mahapatra vs State Of Odisha

This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioner seeking for quashment of the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in V.G.R. Case No.6 of 2017, registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the "P.C. Act"), and for his discharge.

It would reveal from the F.I.R., charge-sheet and other papers on record that the Government in Water Resources Department had sanctioned a compensation of Rs.5,43,000/- in favour of the Informant towards relief and rehabilitation assistance under Kanpur Irrigation Project, Basudevpur, Keonjhar, and that for the purpose of getting release of the final installment amounting to Rs.3,10,000/- approximately, the Informant submitted an application in the office of the Project Director concerned on 19.04.2017. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner who by then was working as the Dealing Assistant in the office of the Project Director, demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the Informant for release of the balance compensation money and crediting the same in the Bank account of the Informant. It is further alleged that on 27.04.2017 when the Informant again approached the accused- petitioner at his office, the accused-petitioner reiterated the same demand and declined to reduce the amount of bribe, and also took away the Bank Passbook from the possession of the Informant by saying that the same would be returned after the demanded amount of bribe was paid to him. It is the further case of the prosecution that pursuant to a written report lodged by the Informant on 03.05.2017 regarding the illegal demand of bribe, P.S. Case No.22 of 2017 was registered at Vigilance Police Station, Balasore as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Balasore and the Inspector, Vigilance, Keonjhar Unit was directed to take up the investigation by laying a trap. Accordingly, a vigilance trap was laid on 04.05.2017, in course of which the accused-petitioner was caught red- handed, and the tainted cash of Rs.50,000/- that had been received by him from the Informant on demand and thrown by him on office verandah, was seized by the Vigilance police. The Bank Passbook of the Informant which had also been thrown by the accused- petitioner was also seized at the spot. The left hand wash and left wearing pant pocket wash of the accused-petitioner on being tested with sodium carbonate solution turned to pink colour. The Vigilance police on completing investigation submitted charge- sheet against the accused-petitioner, and the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences indicated above. While the case stood posted for framing of charge, the accused-petitioner moved an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking an order of discharge, and the said petition having been rejected by the learned trial Court, the accused- petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and propriety of the said order, and also seeking for his discharge.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted, inter-alia, that since the amount of compensation that remained due to the Informant was evidently released in his favour on 27.04.2017 itself with issuance of order at the instance of the petitioner, dealing assistant to the concerned bank for crediting the amount to the account of the Informant which was honoured by the Bank on 28.04.2017, the very case of the prosecution regarding demand and payment of bribe of Rs.50,000/- on 04.05.2017, i.e., the date of the vigilance trap becomes improbable. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Informant having endorsed the voucher as a token of receipt of the balance amount of compensation on 27.04.2017, his allegation of payment of bribe against the petitioner is also baseless. The learned counsel has further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation vis-à-vis the documents prepared regarding the trap. According to him, when the prosecution case suffers from inherent improbability and gross incoherence, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer of the accused-petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

The learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submits that this being not a stage to test the probative value of the prosecution case, and the accused- petitioner at the time of charge being not entitled to produce or rely on any material which are not placed or relied on by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the accused- petitioner. It is his submission that the materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to frame charge against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)/7 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

There is no denying from the side of the accused- petitioner that at the relevant time he was the dealing assistant in the office of the Project Director, and the papers / files related to the compensation payable to the Informant were to be processed through him. There is also no dispute on record that the Informant is an illiterate person which was known to the accused- petitioner. It is the allegation of the Informant that on 27.04.2017 the petitioner while demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/- took away his Bank Passbook by saying that the same would be returned to him after the demanded bribe amount was paid. The papers placed by the Investigating Officer further reveal that on 04.05.2017 during course of the trap proceeding, the tainted amount of Rs.50,000/- along with Bank Passbook of the Informant was seized on the office verandah of the Project Director, after those were thrown by the accused-petitioner on coming to know about the vigilance trap.

At the time of considering the question of framing of charge, the Court is not called upon to make any exercise of finding evidence capable of convicting the accused-petitioner for the offences alleged. What all that is necessary, at this stage, is to find out materials, if any, to draw a presumption of guilt against the accused. The expression "ground for presuming" in the context of framing of charge has been elaborated by the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vrs. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, as follows:-

"30. We have already noticed that the legislature in its wisdom has used the expression "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence". This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa referred to the meaning of the word "presume" while relying upon Black's Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence"; "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming". In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgment. Xxxxx xxxxxxxx"

In the case at hand, since the materials on record appear to be sufficient to draw a presumption that the petitioner has committed the offences as alleged, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this CRLMC stands dismissed.