Yashbir Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Dehradun had received a complaint by one Shri Zulfikar Ahmad S/o Ijhar Ahmad on 19.11.2019, wherein, it has been alleged that he was having a Tractor U.K. 07 BF 4367, which was registered as agriculture vehicle, however, since the complainant was having the business of supply of building materials, he wished to convert the aforesaid Tractor to a commercial vehicle and accordingly had made an application in this regard on 19.11.2019 along with other formalities. The complainant had also deposited the prescribed fees of Rs.4200/- on the same day. It has further been alleged in the said complaint that when he 2 reached the counter No.4 to obtain the registration certificate of commercial vehicle, the employee posted there namely Monu had asked a sum of Rs.6,000/-, however, he was told that the complainant has already deposited the prescribed fees of Rs.4200/-, however, the said employee Monu had informed that if he wanted registration certificate, he had to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-, the said employee called the complainant on 20.11.2019 to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-. The complainant alleged that he did not want to pay the bribe and hence, appropriate proceeding be undertaken against such corrupt official. The aforesaid complaint was preferred on 19.11.2019. The application was marked for preliminary inquiry and thereafter, it was agreed that the trap will be conducted on 20.11.2019. The office of the District Magistrate, Dehradun had also been approached for providing two independent witnesses on

20.11.2019 itself and two independent witnesses namely Sanjay Rawat and Sanjay Chandola had also been nominated on the same day by the District Magistrate Dehradun. As the complainant could not arrange a sum of money to be paid as bribe, hence, the proceedings of pre- trap was deferred for next day i.e.21.11.2019. The Inspector who had been assigned the duties to carry out the preliminary inquiry regarding the correctness of the allegations made, had submitted the report that since on

19.11.2019, the complaint was received at late hours and the verification of the complaint could not be carried out on

19.11.2019, hence, the verification could only be done on

20.11.2019. In the said preliminary inquiry, the case had been established that Monu is not an employee of the Regional Transport Office, but it is Yashbir Singh Bisht, who had engaged said Monu to receive illegal bribe and Monu @ Sandeep Kumar was used as conduit. The aforesaid report was submitted on 20.11.2019, however, the trap lying officer submitted the application to SSP, 3 Vigilance Establishment that since he was directed on

19.11.2019 to conduct trap on 20.11.2019 and sought permission regarding the constitution of team and other formalities required. Simultaneously, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance had written to District Magistrate, Dehradun on 20.11.2019, wherein, he sought independent witnesses before 01:00 PM and trap was laid on

21.11.2019. The complainant paid Rs. 6000/- to one person, who later on disclosed his name as Pradeep Kumar s/o Ghanshyam. The complainant further clarified that Monu had told him to pay the money to Monu, who was found sitting in Counter No.4D. When grilled, Monu disclosed that he worked for the applicant-Yashbir Singh Bisht, who was a Government Servant and sit in Counter No.4. Monu told about himself that he was a private person and worked as a pimp for the applicant. Accordingly, applicant along with Monu and Pradeep Kumar were arrested and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against them.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the applicant has falsely been implicated for the offences alleged under Section 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 IPC, as when the trap proceedings were being carried out on 21.11.2019, the applicant was not even present in his office. He further submits that in the complaint, there were no allegations made against the applicant demanding any money. He also submits that when the complainant was confronted with the applicant, he even failed to recognize him, which further shows that the applicant is being falsely implicated.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that post conclusion of the investigation, Vigilance Department had applied for sanction of prosecution, which is supposed 4 to be provided by the Appointing Authority of the applicant, who in this case was Additional Transport Commissioner (ATC). He further contends that the Additional Chief Secretary, Personnel and Vigilance, in furtherance of a recommendation from Director, Vigilance Department, had directed the Department of Transport to provide appropriate sanction of prosecution (SoP) against the applicant on 10.01.2020 and accordingly, on 14.01.2020, Additional Secretary, Department of Transport, had written to the Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to provide SoP.

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the ATC was not convinced about the facts and circumstances and the evidences collected in this regard and on 06.12.2019 had also directed the ARTO, Rishikesh to conduct an inquiry in the matter. ARTO, Rishikesh submitted an inquiry report on 30.07.2021 and no allegations against the applicant could be substantiated in the said report. It is also contended by him that the Vigilance Department started mounting undue pressure on Secretary, Department of Transport, to provide SoP within a week and on a later date, the State Vigilance Committee itself considered the matter and again created undue pressure to take a decision on sanction. He further submits that it was only after the superannuation of ATC, the Transport Commissioner under the directions of State Government provided the SoP.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the SoP granted and cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, are bad in law, as the due process under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not adhered to. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon a judgment dated 24.07.2015 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka in 5 Criminal Appeal No.1867 of 2012. He also relied upon a judgment dated 18.06.2020 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain in Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the present case consists of disputed set of facts which can only be decided before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the power of High Court under Section 482 is extraordinary in nature and should be exercised only in the rarest of rare occasions.

8. Learned State Counsel further submits that if present C482 is allowed, then a wrong precedent will be set, where corrupt government officials will start indulging in acts of bribery through others, much like in the present case.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case consists of multiple sets of disputed facts viz. faulty trap laying process, public servant taking bribe through an agent; agent (Monu) not himself being a public servant but collecting bribe on behalf of applicant who is a public servant, which can only be settled before the learned Trial Court, as this Court at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C. doesn’t have jurisdiction to sift the evidence. Thereafter, it will not be appropriate to stifle the prosecution at this stage. Furthermore, the sanction of prosecution against the applicant was eventually granted by an appropriate authority and the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the sanction of prosecution was not granted learned Additional Transport Commissioner, therefore, does not suffice. Moreover, the present case does not fall within the ambit of ‘rarest of rare’ category, and 6 therefore, this Court does not consider it necessary to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., because, this Court is of the opinion that entertaining such a matter would set a dangerous precedent that can open up a Pandora’s box, enabling corrupt government officials to adopt a similar modus operandi in the future.

10. In a catena of judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should be slow in interfering with criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant. Section 7 and Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been enacted by legislation in its wisdom to tackle these types of situations, which are quoted herein below: “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed: Any public servant who,- (a)obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b)obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c)performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration. - A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section. Explanation 2. - For the purpose of this section,- (i)the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii). it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party. 7 7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence.-Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

11. Furthermore, after going through the judgments supplied by the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter in hand, prima facie, consists of disputed facts and allegations, the truth of which could only be found out by a proper trial. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima-facie a case is made out against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial. Judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka and D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (supra) are not of any help to the applicant in the given facts and situation of the present case.

12. Recently, of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub- paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- “33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; 33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; 8

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

13. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant was summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

15. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.08.2025