Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2813 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Trilok Singh

2011-12-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner State challenging the order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur in connection with F.I.R. No.163/2000 of Out Post, Pali whereby he has discharged the respondent from the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a chargesheet was filed against the respondent with the allegations that when Dy. S.P., ACB, Pali conducted a surprise checking on 27.4.2000 of a bus in which the respondent was a conductor, it was found that a total of 28 passengers were present, out of which 4 were found to be without ticket. Furthermore, on the personal search of the respondent being undertaken, certain cash beyond the permissible limits was found in the pocket of the respondent for which no satisfactory explanation was afforded by the respondent. After, the filing of charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge at the stage of framing of charges, proceeded to discharge the respondent of the offences for which the charge-sheet had been filed, by the impugned order dated 18.3.2002. Hence, being aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2002, the present revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the State. 4. Assailing the order impugned, Mr.K.K. Rawal, learned public prosecutor has submitted that the order impugned is perse illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, the defence of the accused is not to be seen and even a grave suspicion is sufficient for framing charges of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is also submitted that since the respondent committed the breach of the notifications issued under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975, there was no justification for the discharge of the respondent. 5. Per contra, Mr.RK Charan, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition and has submitted that in this case, ex-facie the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) are not made out against the respondent. 5. Per contra, Mr.RK Charan, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition and has submitted that in this case, ex-facie the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) are not made out against the respondent. It is submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 409 IPC are also not disclosed because there was no valid evidence available on the record to show that the respondent had received any money from the ticketless passenger which he has misappropriated. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in similar revisions which came to be rejected by a common order dated 16.8.2004. Thus, it is submitted that the revision being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the impugned order. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be sustained. The learned Special Judge has relied upon the affidavits of the alleged passengers (by way of defence documents) who were found to be travelling without ticket in the bus and has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration reported in 1996(2) SCC (Cri.) 126 and on the basis of the said judgment, the respondent has been discharged from the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as offence under Section 409 IPC. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra (supra) has subsequently been overruled by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath reported in AIR 2005 SC 359 . Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment of learned Special Judge cannot be sustained. 8. Resultantly, this revision petition succeeds. The order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur is set aside and the learned Special Judge is directed to hear the State as well as the respondent again on the question of charges and thereafter, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. Resultantly, this revision petition succeeds. The order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur is set aside and the learned Special Judge is directed to hear the State as well as the respondent again on the question of charges and thereafter, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid order of this Court shall not be considered as any opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Special Judge shall be at liberty to consider and decide the question about charges in accordance with law without being influenced by the aforesaid order of this Court. The respondent shall appear before the learned Special Judge on 3.2.2012 and thereafter, the learned Special Judge shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******