Criminal Revision Case No. 1808 of 2002 · High Court

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 27.08.2002 in Crl.M.P. No.208 of 2002 in C.C. No.28 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases at Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petitioner filed by the respondent/A.2 for discharge, was allowed, as there was no prima facie case available against him to show that he demanded any amount from the management of M/s. Medchal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and received amount from P.W.1-one of the Directors of the company.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the C.B.I. contended that, the respondent/A.2 was present at the time of receipt of money by A.1 and he participated in the negotiations between A.1 and defacto complainant with regard to bribe amount, and that the allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that the respondent/A.2 also suggested to P.W.1 to settle the matter quickly and also stated that there were seven Inspectors in their group and that all of them were having their own views on the case relating to M/s. Medchal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, and therefore a prima facie case has been made out against the respondent/A.2. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of discharge.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is absolutely no material to show that the respondent/A.2 demanded and accepted money or committed misconduct or that he shared common intention with A.1, and therefore the trial Court rightly discharged him and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision case.

Now, it has to be seen whether the order of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper ?

There cannot be any dispute that, revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings of the court below are illegal or improper or incorrect, normally this court will not interfere with the same.

As seen from the material available on record, the statements of witnesses and the contents of the charge sheet, is no allegation of whatsoever to show respondent/A.2 demanded any amount or accepted any amount, from P.W.1. The only allegation is that he suggested P.W.1 to settle the matter quickly. He was present just prior to trap proceedings and thereafter he was present in the driver’s seat of the car of A.1 when A.1 allegedly accepted the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/-.

Section 34 I.P.C. stipulates that, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act. In view of the fact that common intention is locked up in the mind of the accused, it is difficult to prove sharing of common intention by both the accused. Therefore, the common intention can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. On no occasion, the respondent/A.2 demanded the defacto complainant to pay certain amount. He is not the person who detected the evasion of excise duty in respect one by-product that was manufactured by M/s. Medchal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. In the F.I.R., there is no allegation that the respondent/A.2 visited the factory premises on 23.12.2000 along with A.1. Similarly, there is no allegation in the charge sheet to show that the respondent/A.2 inspected the factory prior to the date of trap so as to infer that there was a meeting of minds between A.1 and A.2. The only allegation is that he was present along with A.1 just prior to trap and also at the time of trap, and at the time of trap, he was allegedly sitting the driver’s seat. Therefore, in such circumstances, the possibility of A.1 taking A.2 as driver to go to the hotel, cannot be ruled out.

Similarly, the tainted currency notes were not seized at the instance of respondent/A.2. When both hand fingers of the respondent/A.2 were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, the colour of the solution remained unchanged, suggesting that he has not contacted the bribe amount. There is no allegation that he threatened the management of the factory that excise duty and penalty worth about Rs.1.30 crores would be levied in case the defacto complainant failed to pay the bribe amount. The allegation of mere presence of respondent/A.2 along with A.1 in the hotel and participating in the conversation between P.W.1 and A.1 and presence when A.1 was allegedly accepting from P.W.1, do not lead to an irresistible conclusion that he shared a common intention with A.1. Therefore, there are absolutely no circumstances in the case to infer that respondent/A.2 shared common intention with A.1 to demand or request the defacto complainant to pay bribe so as not to proceed further for levying excise duty and penalty. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly discharged the respondent/A.2. None of the findings is shown to be illegal or improper or incorrect. In the absence of the same, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.

The Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.)

15.09.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1808 of 2002

15.09.2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1808 of 2002 Dated: 15.09.2009 State, rep. by C.B.I., Hyderabad C.Srinath And …Petitioner …Respondent