Kumar Suman Singh vs State of Bihar

V.N. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Petitioner in both cases (Cr. Misc. Nos. 37620 and 43488 of 2005) is one and the same person. He has filed the aforesaid two petitions assailing the orders dated 16-9-2005 and 21-10-2005, passed in Special Case No. 13 of 2003/R.C. No. 24A of 2003, whereunder the Court below has refused to discharge him from the trial for the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 380, 409 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(e) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and then has proceeded to frame charges for the offences under the aforesaid sections under order dated 21-10-2005.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the averments made in these petitions contended that the offences under Sections 409, 120B and other allied Sections of the Penal Code and Sections 8 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not made out against the petitioner as he is not a public servant as also he has not induced any public servant for committing the Medical Admission Scam as the petitioner was roped in the said scam only at the stage when the buyers for the solved question papers which were already leaked out by the Bank officials and others were being looked for learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on several judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of the State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini and Others, Paragraphs-680, 588, 589, 593 and 594, the State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, , K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, ; Nathu Garam Vs. State of U.P., ; Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and Others, .

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the C.B.I, with reference to the materials recorded in the charge-sheet at Page-34 of the brief in Cr. Misc. No. 43483 of 2005 has submitted that the offences under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code as also under the P.C. Act are made out even against the petitioner and in support of the contention he has relied on decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others, and State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.,

Perusal of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court except in the case of the State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini and Others, indicates that Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter u/s 227 or Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains In the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt, at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima fade whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.

The case of Nalini (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as the said judgment was rendered after conviction in trial and not at this stage under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As regards applicability of Section 8 of the P.C. Act in the facts of the present case, I am to say that this section is applicable even to others who are not public servants if they induce any public servant to do any illegal act which is obvious from a bare reading of the said section. In the present case, the petitioner is alleged to be in conspiracy to induce the public servant to commit the Medical Examination Scam as it appears from the materials as disclosed in the charge-sheet at Page 34 of the brief in Cr. Misc. No. 34488 of 2005, accordingly, I am of the view that the offence alleged against him is prima facie made out.

Having perused the averments made in the two petitions as also materials collected in the charge-sheet, I am of the view that the offence alleged against the petitioner is made out for the purpose of framing charge and in that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned dated 16-9-2005 and 21-10-2005.

The petitions are dismissed