Suresh Prasad Verma vs State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

This revision application has been filed against the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by Ms. Kalpana Hazarika, learned Special Judge, ACB-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.92 of 2021 arising out of Vigilance Case No.01 of 2020 (A.C.B., Jamshedpur P.S. Case No.13 of 2019 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act) whereby and whereunder, petition for discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that discharge petition is pressed on three grounds.

Firstly, as per F.I.R. as well as pre trap memorandum and post trap memorandum, the telephonic call was made by the petitioner-accused asking him to come to the market place but no call detail report of this telephonic conversation have been collected during investigation.

Secondly, the petitioner-accused is Junior Engineer and he is not competent for final sanction the bill therefore, the allegation that he was demanding illegal gratification by clearing those bill with respect to Rs.7,00,000/- ,is unfounded.

Thirdly, no specific proof of demand and recovery has been made from conscious and physical possession of this petitioner-accused but as per the case of the prosecution, it was found at back sheet of car and the informant was sitting inside the care when the recovery was made. The sanction was granted without application of mind.

The revision petition has been contested by the A.C.B. by filing a counter affidavit. Learned Counsel Mr. Suraj Verma submits, submits the prosecution case in brief is that informant Vikash Kumar Sharma is the proprietor of Jai Mata Di enterprise to which work of 280 meter construction of P.C.C. road allocated in Tamuliya 'D' colony by Rural Development Department, Seraikella. The complainant was authorized to do this work by his mother. The estimated cost of this road was Rs.11,54,964/-. After completion of work, the bill amount of Rs.7,00,000/-was paid to him and for giving the bill of remaining amount, the accused petitioner was demanding Rs.28,000/- as bribe. It is further alleged that the informant did not want to give bribe and therefore given an application to S.P., A.C.B., Jamshedpur on 23.10.2019 in this regard. The S.P., A.C.B., Jamshedpur had directed to Shree N.K. Mandal, the then Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Jamshedpur to verify the allegation. During verification, the complainant has requested to reduce the demanded bribe money but the petitioner was not ready to reduce the bribe money and after much negotiation accused petitioner was agreed to take Rs.10,000/- in first installment and balance amount will be given after some times, and after verification the allegation was found true and accordingly Verification Officer submitted his report on 13.11.2019. On the basis of verification report, a case was registered vide A.C.B., Jamshedpur P.S. Case No.13/19 dated 13.11.2019 U/s 7(a) P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 against the accused petitioner. Following all the legal procedure, a trap was laid against the accused on 14.11.2019. The accused petitioner was apprehended while accepting Rs. 10,000/- as bribe and the same was recovered from the bag of seat cover of driving seat of the accused petitioner’s car in his conscious presence witnessed by independent witnesses. The numbers of recovered notes were tallied by the independent witnesses with the number noted in G.C. Notes Memorandum and found they are same. Property search-cum-seizure list was prepared upon which both the independent witness put their signature voluntarily. The bag of seat cover of driving seat when wiped with cotton and washed with Sodium Carbonate solution, turned become pink. On interrogation, the accused petitioner did not give any satisfactory statement and after that he was arrested. During the course of search of house of the petitioner, Bank Passbook, cash amount, ornaments and other documents were seized and also Rs.2,67,30,000/- was recovered from the room of petitioner's tenant namely Alok Ranjan. After completing the investigation of the case and after obtaining the sanction for prosecution, Anti Corruption Bureau has submitted charge sheet vide charge No. 11/01/2020 U/s 7(a) P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 and 201/120B I.P.C. against accused petitioner in Learned Special Court, Chaibasa. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation and other material available on the record, the Learned Court has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioner and discharge petition has been rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that verification report clearly states that demand had been made by petitioner-accused in the post trap memorandum. There is specific reference to the effect that the amount was kept in car as per instruction of petitioner-accused and on search, the same was recovered and seized by the police from is vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses. Other formalities were also completed with regard to the seizure.

At the outset, it is to be noted that at this stage scope of adjudication while hearing a discharge petition is a limited one and cannot become a mini trial while considering the material on the basis of which the charge is to be framed. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need to be undertaken at this stage. The provision as laid down under Section down under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is plain and emphatic which is reproduced below.

When accused shall be discharged.—(1) If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

From the plain reading of the provision, it is manifest that at the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgement 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 this stage.

This court is of the view that the points that have been raised in the instant revision petition are question of facts and part of the defence of the accused which can be considered during trial and not at this stage. There are sufficient materials for framing of charge and I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

The revision stands rejected. IA No.4382 of 2022 is accordingly disposed of.