Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 987 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar Tiku v. State Through C. B. I.

2001-09-06

K.S.GAREWAL

body2001
Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. The petitioner is facing trial before the learned Special Judge, Ambala for offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered vide RC 6/1998 by the CBI, Chandigarh. At this stage the learned trial Court is due to consider framing of the charges against the accused. The petitioner vide application dated July 19, 2001 had sought production of the complete record of RC 40/1997 including the statements of owners of flour mills in Haryana recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the petitioner recorded on November 19, 1998 along with his affidavit and the investigation record including summary of conclusions recorded by the CBI and submitted to the FCI for the purpose of obtaining sanction. 2. Precise argument of the petitioner is that in the earlier case, which was similar to the present one, the petitioner was not sent up for trial as he was placed in column 2. Therefore, the evidence collected during investigation in the case, which led to the conclusion by the CBI that the petitioner was not to the sent up for trial was necessary to be examined by the learned special Judge. 3. In the present case at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. "The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before, it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offences, then the charge can be quashed." (as per State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 452 (SC) : 2000(6) Supreme Court Cases 328.) Reliance has also been placed on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 411 (SC) : 1996(9) Supreme Court Cases 766. 4. 4. The challenge in this petition is to the rejection of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the record and examining it for the purposes of framing of the charge. It would not be proper to examine the allegations in detail for fear of influencing the trial Court. However, the basic fact is that the allegations in RC 40/1997 were that Flour Mill Owners of Haryana had formed an association and passed on a bribe to Sh. R.K. Ranga, Senior Regional Manager, FCI through Surinder Kumar Tiku (petitioner herein) to secure certain benefits by violating the Open Market Sale Scheme (Domestic). The allegation in the present case is also that Surinder Kumar Tiku had received money from the flour mill owners and passed on the bribe to Sh. R.K. Ranga. The allegations appear to be similar. Therefore, the petitioner is certainly interested in showing to the trial Court that on similar allegations he was not sent up for trial and was placed in column 2. Consequently, whatever documents/statements which have been recorded in the earlier case are to be pressed into service to claim discharge in the present case. 5. There appears to be law in favour of the petitioner to the effect that accused has a right to present documentary evidence to claim discharge. However, in the present case the nature of the offences are such that there would not be and indeed can never be any document in the earlier case which would establish that Surinder Kumar Tiku had not accepted bribes on behalf of Sh. R.K. Ranga. It was on the basis of appreciation of evidence already recorded, the investigators chose out to proceed against him. Nevertheless, in the present case the investigators have decided to proceed against Surinder Kumar Tiku on the basis of evidence collected. It would be for the trial Court to see whether this evidence was sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner or not. 6. In State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni (supra), the accused had sought to rebut the prosecution case by referring to his income tax returns and assessment orders. These would certainly have helped him in controverting the prosecution allegations which were with regard to his holding disproportionate assets. It was in those circumstances that the Court had held that the documents were relevant in the trial Court to reach a prima facie conclusion. These would certainly have helped him in controverting the prosecution allegations which were with regard to his holding disproportionate assets. It was in those circumstances that the Court had held that the documents were relevant in the trial Court to reach a prima facie conclusion. Similarly, in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (supra), the documents had been found to be relevant and were entertained. In the present case the accused petitioner is at liberty to place any document before the learned Single Judge, but it is extremely doubtful whether he can call upon the court to summon the record of the earlier case under Section 91 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the present case where the allegations are of accepting bribes and passing them on to a senior officer, it is very unlikely that documents would be available, which could rebut the entire prosecution case as now put forth by the CBI and on the basis of which the framing of the charge is to be considered by the Court. 7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 8. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the court reader.