Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2582 (RAJ)

Phoola Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in the case, challenging the Order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner in P.C. Case No. 16/2009, whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accepted the Final Report given by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 2. Briefly stated, the facts, relevant and necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are stated hereinbelow. 3. The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code with the allegation that he had, purchased an agricultural field in village Hussansar. He further alleged that he had engaged one Chhotu Ram for the purpose of cultivating and looking after the agricultural field. Ten days after he purchased the field, one Ram Lal Baradia R/o Bheenasar, filed a suit against the original owners of the land, which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner and in that suit, the original owners submitted the written statement that they had sold the land to the present petitioner. It was further alleged that the Court appointed a Commissioner for submission of his report to the Court and the date was fixed by the Commissioner for inspection of the site on 24.5.2009. He further alleged that the aforementioned Ram Lal Baradia, with the object of showing his possession over the field, sent his hired miscreants armed with weapons a few hours before inspection for the purpose of slowing his possession over the field. Those miscreants, numbering 32 to 35, went to the field, wrongfully restrained Chhotu Ram and his family members and damaged the hut, the house-hold articles of Chhotu Ram and painted the name of "Ram Lal Baradia" on the water tank and also erected an iron board showing the name of Ram Lal Bardia so that the Commissioner would find the possession of Ram Lal Bardia on the field. Thereafter in the morning, the Commissioner completed his inspection, where Chhotu Lal intimated the a ommissioner about the misdeeds committed with him. Thereafter in the morning, the Commissioner completed his inspection, where Chhotu Lal intimated the a ommissioner about the misdeeds committed with him. Chhotu Lal also filed a report of this incident at the Police Station, Bichhwal and F.I.R. No. 94/2009 was registered at the Police Station, Bichhwal for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 342, 336, 427, 147, 149 and 379, Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is further alleged in the complaint that since the allegations were in relation to the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the investigation was handed over to respondent No. 2 Sarjeet Singh Meena, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who inspected the site on 27.5.2009 and on the basis of the inspection, it became apparent that the offences, as alleged in the F.I.R., had been committed. During pendency of investigation, the complainant alleged that respondent No. 2 Sarjeet Singh Meena, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner-complainant for the purpose of filing challan in the F.I.R. so that the petitioner-complainant could gain leverage in the civil suit. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 also intimated the petitioner-complainant that Ram Lal Baradia had offered him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for giving final report in the matter. The complainant alleged that he was not in a position to give the said amount demanded by the respondent No. 2, on which he submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner as well as to the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, but to no avail and ultimately the respondent No. 2 gave a final report in F.I.R. No. 94/2009. The petitioner-complainant alleged that he made repeated complaints also to the Chief Minister, Home Secretary and the Director General of Police, but no action was taken on his complaints, on which he was left with no other option but to file the complaint, as mentioned above. 4. On the said complaint, the learned Special Judge recorded the statement of the petitioner-complainant under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter forwarded the complaint to the Investigating Agency, i.e. the Anti-Corruption Bureau for inquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code The Inquiry Officer of Anti- Corruption Bureau made an inquiry and then submitted his report to the Court. 4. On the said complaint, the learned Special Judge recorded the statement of the petitioner-complainant under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter forwarded the complaint to the Investigating Agency, i.e. the Anti-Corruption Bureau for inquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code The Inquiry Officer of Anti- Corruption Bureau made an inquiry and then submitted his report to the Court. Thereafter the complainant submitted written arguments in the Court below and the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, after considering the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the inquiry report submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau after making inquiry conducted under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code , giving substantial reasons, proceeded to reject the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant by the impugned order dated 5.10.2010 and accordingly, the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 5. Mr. Bhagirath Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, there was ample material available on record to show that the respondent No. 1, whilst investigating the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Chhotu Ram, was in a position to cause benefit to either of the parties, i.e. the complainant or the accused and in order to investigate the matter accordingly in a motivated fashion, the respondent No. 2 demanded bribe, which is an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted that the learned Court below has committed *grave error and illegality in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 2 deliberately did not investigate the F.I.R. No. 94/2009 properly for causing benefit to the accused in the said F.I.R. and because the petitioner did not accede to the illegal demands of the respondent No. 2, he unfairly gave Final Report in the matter. It is submitted that, thus, the admitted facts on record disclose commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the respondent No. 2. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondent No. 2 have submitted that the allegation of demand of bribe by the respondent No. 2 has not been substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondent No. 2 have submitted that the allegation of demand of bribe by the respondent No. 2 has not been substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. It is submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau inquired into the matter under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and found that no offence was made out from the allegations made by the complainant and, thus, there was no reason to interfere in the well- reasoned order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant. It has been submitted that the complainant, in his statement recorded under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code , stated to the Court that he came to know about giving the Final Report by the respondent No. 2 after taking bribe of Rs. 1 lac. The information was given to him by Chhagan Lal and Ram Lal of Bheenasar. The trial Court has found that as neither of these two witnesses have been examined in support of the complaint, there remained no evidence on the record of the case to substantiate the allegations of the complainant. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar and the record of the case. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the complainant has not been able to substantiate the allegations made against the respondent No. 2 regarding demand of bribe from the complainant for the purpose of properly investigating the F.I.R. No. 94/2009. It is a bald allegation of the complainant in the complaint as also in his statement recorded under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code , which has not found any support in the inquiry made by the Officer of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The complaint of the present petitioner dated 10.7.2009 made to the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner has also been placed on record and in this complaint, there is no allegation that the respondent No. 2 demanded a bribe from the complainant. The petitioner-complainant, in his statement recorded under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code stated that the demand of bribe was made by the respondent No. 2 four to five days after the inspection was made. The petitioner-complainant, in his statement recorded under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code stated that the demand of bribe was made by the respondent No. 2 four to five days after the inspection was made. In the opinion of this Court, had the demand of bribe been made by the respondent No. 2 within the period of four to five days after 27.5.2009 then this fact would definitely have been mentioned in the complaint of the complainant made to the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner on 10.7.2009. The allegation of demanding bribe by the respondent No. 2 appears to be created subsequently because the petitioner-complainant did not succeed in his design to get the result of the investigation of F.I.R. No. 94/2009 in his favour. The learned Special Judge, whilst rejecting the complaint filed with the allegation has rightly held that the allegation regarding acceptance of bribe by the respondent No. 2 from the accused in the F.I.R. No. 94/2009 was based on the information given to the complainant by Chhagan Lal and Ram Lal of Bheenasar, but Chhagan Lal did not support this fact in the enquiry made under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and thus the allegations remained unsubstantiated. 9. In this background of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be said to be illegal or unjust by any stretch of imagination. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******