Chandramani Prasad .... .... … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 3378 of 2022 Chandramani Prasad .... .... …. Petitioner ------ Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... 2. Rashid Hussain .... .... Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is apparent that payment by cheque was made to the supplier Piyush Rajgharia. As argued on behalf of the petitioner, it has come in the FIR that in the preliminary inquiry it came to light that Rs 1,70,000/- to be paid by the complainant to Piyush Rajgharia. There is no material whatsoever in support of the allegation of accepting bribe amount by this petitioner who was not even present in the office. No doubt the definition of section 7 is wide enough to cover a case, where the amount is being received by the public servant himself or through a third party under his instruction. In the present case however, there is no whisper in the FIR that the amount that was received by Piyush Rajgharia was on behalf of the petitioner. The story that Head Clerk asked Piyush Rajgharia to take the cheque and pay the amount to him after its encashment is 3 first time developed in the post trap memorandum. The argument that has been made on behalf the ACB that the cheque and received by Piyush Rjgarhia for being paid to the petitioner, is not supported either in the FIR or in the Complaint filed to the S.P., A.C.B. 11. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no material to show that any amount was received or recovered from this petitioner or on his behalf. Payment of the due amount by the complainant/contractor to the supplier of the materials is attempted to be given the colour of illegal gratification. I do not find that prima facie case is made out on the materials available of record and it shall be an abuse of process of Court to permit the continuation of the instant criminal proceeding. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The entire criminal proceeding in connection with Vigilance Case No.16 of 2018 arising out of Hazaribag (A.C.B.) P.S. Case No.01 of 2016 against this petitioner is quashed. Criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY : Mr. Awanish Shankar, Advocate : Ms. Priya Shrestha, S.P.P. For the Petitioner For the ACB ------ Order No.05 Dated : 30.06.2023 1. Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.08.2022 in connection with Vigilance Case No.16 of 2018 arising out of Hazaribag (A.C.B.) P. S. Case No.01 of 2016 for the offence registered under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) pending in the Court be learned Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribag. 2. with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The learned Court below has framed charges Sections 7, 13(2) read 3. The petitioner was field officer in the office of District Soil Conservation Office, Chatra. The complainant-Rashid Hussain submitted a complaint to Superintendent of Police, ACB that contract was awarded to the complainant and his co-villager Liaqat Hussain for construction of a check dam for estimate of Rs.15,00,000/- which was completed in month of March, 2016 and the necessary entries were also made in the measurement book and the matter for payment of Rs.3,88,000/- by cheque, was pending. 4. It is alleged that this petitioner who was Junior Engineer and the Head Clerk, Rajesh Ranjan made a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as 26% commission for the balance amount to be paid to the complainant and his co-villager. 5. The complaint, was verified and the allegation was found true in the Preliminary Inquiry followed by institution of the case. It has come in the FIR that complainant’s prayer for reduced payment of commission was not accepted by this petitioner and a demand by cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- was made. Against the said demand, a trap was laid and a cheque drawn in the name of Piyush Rajgarhiya as commission was given under instruction of the Head Clerk, Rajesh Ranjan to Piyush Rajgarhiya who was asked to enter his name in cheque and pay his commission amount after getting it encashed from the Bank. The 2 petitioner- Chandramani Prasad was not present in the office. Rajesh Ranjan and Piyush Rajgarhiya were apprehended while receiving the said cheque. 6. After investigation chargesheet has been submitted, cognizance taken and the charge has been framed which is under challenge in the instant petition. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the materials on record do not disclose fundamental ingredients to make out a prima facie case under section 7 of the PC Act. In order to launch the prosecution against the petitioner, it was necessary to show that there was some material in support of the allegation that there had been demand, acceptance and recovery from this petitioner. 8. As a matter of fact, Piyush Rajgarhiya was supplier of material to the complainant and he had not been paid by the complainant for the materials already supplied by him. The said cheque was given to him in the office as the amount against part payment of the amount that was due to him from the complainant. It does not appeal to reason and commonsense that bribe amount shall be taken by cheque. Further, the complainant owed the money to Piyush Rajgharia is apparent from the verification report itself wherein the complainant has admitted that out of the balance amount to be paid by the Department , Rs1,70,000/-was to be paid by him to Piyush Rajgharia. The cheque of Rs.90,000 by cheque to Piyush Rajgharia was part of that due amount which cannot be regarded as bribe amount. 9. Learned Special P.P. has opposed the petition. It is submitted that Piyush Rajgarhiya was only conduit and he was instructed to receive the amount and deliver to him. 10.