Binod Bihari Verma vs The State of Jharkhand

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the vigilance. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 25 of 2012, whereby on the basis of materials available on record, the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7/ 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner is admittedly a public servant and he was apprehended by the Vigilance while allegedly accepting the bribe money. The case was investigated and after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, and the Court below on the basis of the materials available on record, took cognizance against the petitioner by the impugned order, which is challenged by the petitioner in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the matter, in which it is alleged that the petitioner had demanded the bribe, had already been disposed of prior to the date of occurrence, which was also known to the informant. Learned counsel has, accordingly, submitted that there was no occasion for demand of any bribe by the petitioner. It is also submitted that even the alleged acceptance of bribe was not voluntary and the recovery from the petitioner has been shown after thrusting the money upon the petitioner, and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the Vigilance on the other hand has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was apprehended while accepting the bribe money and, accordingly, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has, accordingly submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that though it is specific case of the petitioner that the matter in which the demand of bribe was allegedly made by the petitioner, was earlier disposed of and the informant was knowing about it, but the fact remains that the petitioner has been apprehended by the vigilance, while allegedly accepting the illegal gratification. In the facts of this case whether there was any occasion for demand of money, or whether the acceptance of the money was voluntary, are the matters, which can be decided only in the trial on the basis of evidence. I am of the considered view that no case is made out for any interference with the impugned order in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and this application is accordingly, dismissed.