Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 502 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Satya Krishna Sharma

2009-02-16

BHANWAROO KHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - A case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against respondent no.1 Satya Krishna Sharma for demanding Rs. 15,000/- as bribe from Hanuman Sahai, respondent no.2. When the Anti Corruption Bureau arranged the trap this demanded amount of bribe could not be traced but lateron accused Satya Krishna Sharma suo moto deposited the said amount in the court. During pendency of the case, complainant Hanuman Sahai moved an application for handing over the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to him on the ground that he handed over Rs. 15,000/- to the officers of the Bureau for applying powder and putting signatures and in the presence of the officers of the Bureau he handed over the amount to the accused. The learned trial Judge i.e. the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Jaipur by the order dated 2.7.2002 observing that regarding the amount deposited by the accused in the Court will be passed at the time of conclusion of the trial, ordered the Bureau to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to complainant. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the learned trial Judge, the State has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned P.P. and perused the order passed by the learned trial Judge. 3. It is borne out from the facts that at the time of trap the tainted money was not recovered from the possession of the accused but lateron it was deposited by him. So prima facie it could not be said that this is the tainted money or the bribe money which was handed over to the accused respondent by the complainant before the raid.The court has directed the department to give Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as the money belongs to the complainant himself as at the time of arranging the raid the same amount was given by him to the department. There exists no rule for return of the money. The trial court while keeping this matter pending has ordered the department to give money to the complainant. 4. Learned P.P. Has argued that since there is no rule by which the department can be bound to pay the money to the complainant through their sources. There exists no rule for return of the money. The trial court while keeping this matter pending has ordered the department to give money to the complainant. 4. Learned P.P. Has argued that since there is no rule by which the department can be bound to pay the money to the complainant through their sources. The court itself has kept the decision regarding the amount deposited by the accused pending till the conclusion of the trial so no order can be given to the department to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. 5. It is true that there are no rules for return of tainted money which always been given by the complainant before arranging the trap. In the instant matter the tainted money could not be recovered but the accused has deposited Rs. 15,000/- in the court. In the circumstances, the department in absence of rules cannot be directed to make payment of the money to the complainant. The trial court could have decided this matter at the conclusion of the trial. So the court has proceeded on assumption in absence of any rules. Hence, the order passed by the trial court is beyond the jurisdiction and thereby the trial court has abused the process of law. The impugned order cannot be sustained as the department cannot be asked to make payment of the tainted money to the complainant from their own sources. 6. For the discussions hereinabove, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the trial court is, set aside.Petition allowed. *******