Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2443 (RAJ)

Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-15

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant in the case of a trap, wherein the Anti-Corruption Bureau has filed a final report in the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jodhpur and the learned Special Judge accepted the Final Report by the order dated 9.3.2009. The petitioner-complainant has thus, approached this Court by way of present revision petition seeking for setting aside the impugned order dated 9.3.2009 and seeking further direction to the Anti-Corruption Bureau for making further investigation and for filing the necessary report in the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondent No. 2. 3. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the complainant in the case. 4. On the last date of hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor had been directed to keep the case diary of the case as well as the Investigating Officer present before this Court. Today, the Investigating Officer is present in the Court and on an inquiry from the Investigating Officer, the following undisputed facts have been intimated to this Court : (1) That the allegation of the complainant regarding demand of bribe has been verified by the recordings of the conversation between the complainant and the accused, (2) That the accused, on the first occasion, contested and did not give consent for giving his voice for comparison with the recordings of conversation and on the second occasion, he refused to accept the notice, and (3) That the forensic report regarding the wash of hand of the accused has been opined to be positive for the presence of phenolphthalein. 5. It is the consistent case of the complainant that the respondent No. 2 demanded the bribe from him and thereafter accepted the same. The bribe had been found inside the bag of the accused from his office. The Investigating Officer informs this Court that the case against the accused had been found proved and when the file was sent to the Headquarters, the Headquarters took a decision to close the case against the accused and thus the sanction was not sought. 6. The bribe had been found inside the bag of the accused from his office. The Investigating Officer informs this Court that the case against the accused had been found proved and when the file was sent to the Headquarters, the Headquarters took a decision to close the case against the accused and thus the sanction was not sought. 6. I have perused the order passed on the file regarding the decision not to prosecute the accused-respondent No. 2, The order dated 4.11.2008 reveals that no reasoning has been given in this order as to why the case against the accused is being closed despite the fact that the Investigating Officer has found the same to be proved against the accused-respondent No. 2. 7. This country, which is suffering from the vice of corruption right from top to bottom, it does not appeal to this Court that in a case wherein there is specific allegation substantiated from the evidence on record regarding a public servant demanding and accepting illegal gratification and the tainted money has also been recovered, the case against such an accused should be closed on the mere ipsi dixit of some officer in the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be sent for further investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The trial Court's order dated 9.3.2009, directing closure of the case, suffers from obvious non-application of mind because the learned trial Judge has mentioned that the recordings at the time of acceptance of the bribe was not made but the fact remains that there is a recording of conversation between the decoy-complainant and the respondent-accused when the demand of bribe was made. Demand of bribe is a distinct offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. The order passed for closure of the case by the Headquarters is also found to be absolutely illegal, perverse and an abuse of process of the Court. A photo state copy of the said order has been placed on record. 9. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 9.3.2009, the file is directed to be returned back to the concerned Investigating Officer of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, who shall proceed with the matter. The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to proceed further in the matter for procuring sanction and thereafter to proceed in the matter as per the law. 9. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 9.3.2009, the file is directed to be returned back to the concerned Investigating Officer of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, who shall proceed with the matter. The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to proceed further in the matter for procuring sanction and thereafter to proceed in the matter as per the law. Since the matter relates to an incident of the year 2007, the Investigating Officer is directed investigate the matter expeditiously and submit the report to the Court concerned at the earliest. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands allowed.Petition allowed. *******