Sudhir Jain vs State of Raj.

Nisha Gupta, J.�This revision petition is filed against the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by Designated Court, Ajmer (Anti Corruption Cases) whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence u/Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The short facts stated in the petition are that the petitioner was working as Divisional Forest Officer at Ajmer having charge of various Forest Offices under him including of Sarwad Forest Range Office. Contractor Gordhan Singh was given a contract for the construction of office- cum-residence building of Sarwad Forest Range for a sum of Rs. 9.62 lacs in the year 2012 and a bill was submitted by him to Ranger Puroshattam Purohit. The ranger Puroshattam Purohit deducted a sum of Rs. 28,000/- from his bill as work of some items mentioned in the bill were not complete till the submission of the bill. Contractor Gordhan Singh was having some other work in Ajmer area and as his work was not found satisfactory, the present petitioner has blacklisted him and to Puroshattam Purohit also several warnings have been issued. In the light of the above contractor Gordhan Singh and ranger Puroshattam Purohit hatched a criminal conspiracy with a view to spoil the career of the petitioner and filed a complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ajmer mentioning therein that the petitioner demanded Rs. 40,000/- from him in presence of ranger Puroshattam Purohit and out of which Rs. 20,000/- had been paid to the petitioner on the same day and rest Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be given to the petitioner by Puroshattam Purohit and recovered from the house of the petitioner under the Sofa. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and the court below has framed the charges against the petitioner, hence this revision petition.

The contention of the petitioner is that there is no evidence that the present petitioner has demanded Rs. 40,000/- or he has accepted the bribe money of Rs. 20,000/-. Gordhan Singh had made in vain efforts to trap the petitioner for giving Rs. 20,000/- on 3.4.2012, 8.4.2012, 9.4.2012, 16.4.2012 and 19.4.2012 and could not succeed. Thereafter, money has been handed over to Puroshattam Purohit who has kept the planted money under the Sofa in the house of the petitioner. The court below passed the impugned order against the material available on record, arbitrarily. There is no evidence to show demand or acceptance of the money. It is unbelievable that the petitioner will demand and accept the money from the person who has been blacklisted by him. Puroshattam Purohit has planted the money in his house. From the hand-wash, no colour was seen. Puroshattam Purohit is also an accused in the matter. Transcript also shows that the petitioner has not demanded any money and he was insisting to complete the work. Call details also suggests that petitioner never went to Sarwad and no money has been paid to him, hence he be discharged from the charges framed against him.

Per contra, the contention of the State is that transcript goes to show that petitioner talked about money of Rs. 40,000/- and further instructed the complainant to contact the ranger. The complainant has specifically stated that he had handed over Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner earlier and it has a reference in the conversation of transcript. Thereafter, money has been recovered from the house of the present petitioner under the Sofaset. Witness, Puroshattam Purohit and complainant has stated against the petitioner that he has demanded Rs. 40,000/-. Rs. 20,000/- has been handed over to him earlier and Rs. 20,000/- has been handed over at the time of the trap which has been recovered during the trap, hence there is ample evidence against the petitioner to charge him with the alleged offence and the order of the trial court needs no interference.

Heard the parties present in person and perused the case diary presented by the State.

The FIR has been lodged by Gordhan Singh with the contention that Rs. 40,000/- has been demanded from him for getting the bill passed and Rs. 20,000/- has been handed over to the petitioner on 30.3.2012. Transcript of conversation between the complainant and petitioner also have reference of Rs. 40,000/-. The contention of the petitioner is that Rs. 28,000/- has been deducted by the ranger from the bill which ought to be Rs. 40,000/- and that is why reference of Rs. 40,000/- has been made in the conversation but there is no reference in the conversation as about deduction of Rs. 40,000/-. Per contra, there is specific narration that only Rs. 28,000/- has been deducted from the bill. Transcript reveals that complainant has stated that Rs. 40,000/- is excessive and the petitioner has specifically stated that he should talk to the ranger and thereafter from his house, money has been recovered. Witness Puroshattam Purohit and complainant Gordhan Singh has narrated the manner in which the demand has been made and money has been accepted and there is no reason to discard the evidence of both these witnesses.

The contention of the petitioner is that he has blacklisted the complainant, hence he was inimical with the petitioner and he has also warned the other witnesses Purshotam Pancholi. These are all defence versions which could be put at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. At the stage of framing of the charges, the material produced by the prosecution should be considered to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner or not to charge him with the alleged offence. The court below has after judicial consideration of the matter, charged the petitioner with the alleged crime.

The petitioner has relied upon Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, where principles have been laid down as regards appreciation of interested witnesses which is not the stage here. At this stage of framing of the charges, nothing has been shown on which the evidence of Puroshattam Purohit and Gordhan Singh could be discarded. Further reliance has been placed on Subhash Parvat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (2) R.C.C 552 where difference between obtain and accepted has been explained.

The further contention of the petitioner is that statement of Puroshattam Purohit are factually incorrect. The contention of the petitioner could not be accepted at this stage and the evidence given by the witness Puroshattam Purohit has to be taken on its face value at this stage of the proceedings.

The court below has considered the First Information Report, transcript, FSL report and also statement of both these witnesses and fact of recovery of money from the possession of house of the petitioner and rightly held that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner to charge him with the offence.

There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.