Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 885 (RAJ)

Narendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-03

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Session Court (Constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act), Kota, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) & 12(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec.120B IPC, the petitioner has approached before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, Mohd. Shakeel, the complainant, has leveled most of the allegations against Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain and has hardly stated anything against the present petitioner. Secondly, although trap proceedings were carried out on 23.02.2007, yet the statement of the complainant was not recorded till nine months latter. Thirdly, it is only nine months latter that for the first time the complainant claims that on an earlier occasion he was taken to the house of the petitioner by Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain, and the petitioner asked him for an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- in order to ensure that VCR is not filled up for the alleged theft of electricity committed by the complainant. Therefore, after a lapse of nine months, suddenly a new story was developed by the complainant. Forthly, the story with regard to the theft of electricity is clearly untenable, as according to the complainant's brother, Mohd. Sarif, the tubewell was being run, not through theft of electricity, but through a generator. Therefore, there was no question of VCR being filled up for theft of electricity. Fifthly, according to the statement of Chandra Mohan Chauhan, the Assistant Engineer, the application for electricity connection was pending and would take many years to be finalized. Therefore, at the relevant time, no work was pending with the petitioner. Lastly, relying on the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. ( AIR 1979 SC 366 ), the learned counsel has contended that this case does not fall within the ambit of Section 227 and 228 of CPC. Therefore, the learned Judge has committed illegality in not discharging the petitioner from the aforementioned offence. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial court cannot enter into a microscopic examination of the evidence. Therefore, the learned Judge has committed illegality in not discharging the petitioner from the aforementioned offence. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial court cannot enter into a microscopic examination of the evidence. In the statement of the complainant, it was clearly stated that initially the persons from electricity company had come and had discovered that there was an alleged theft of electricity being committed by the complainant; in order to ensure that no case is made out, Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain had taken the complainant to the house of the petitioner. According to him, initially a demand of Rs.10,000/- was made, but the same was settled for Rs. 4,000/-. Thus, prima faice, allegation was made against the petitioner. Secon-dly, according to Sec.7 of the P.C. Act, even if no work was pending, even then the persons can be held liable under the P.C. Act. Thus, even if, according to Chandra Mohan Chauhan, the case of the complainant will be taken up after many years, still the petitioner is liable to be charged under the Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner. 5. In his statement, the complainant clearly alleges that Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain and Narendra Kumar came to his farm. According to him, he was not available on the farm. But, his elder brother was very much present. According to him, the petitioner alleged that the complainant was indulging in theft of electricity. Therefore, he was going to fill up the VCR. However, he told the complainant that in case he were to pay Rs.10,000/-, he would not do so. Further, according to the complainant, he was called at the house of the petitioner at night, where again some negotiations took place and finally the matter was settled for Rs.4,000/-. Although the learned counsel has contended that the statement given by Mohd. Shakeel is contrary to the statement given by his brother, Mohd. Sarif that the tubewell was being run by a generator, yet at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court is not expected to meticulously examine the evidence. The same can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. 6. Shakeel is contrary to the statement given by his brother, Mohd. Sarif that the tubewell was being run by a generator, yet at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court is not expected to meticulously examine the evidence. The same can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court is concerned only with the broad outline of the prosecution case. At the initial stage, although it can sift the evidence, yet the sifting can be done for the limited purpose of seeing it a strong suspicion exists about the commission of the offence by the accused. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court cannot meticulously discuss the evidence and pass an order of discharge. 7. Although, according to the statement of Chandra Mohan, the complainant's application for electricity connection would have taken some time, however, even this is not a a valid defence for the petitioner. Section 7 of the P.C., Act reads as under :- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a pubic servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Govt. or any State Govt. or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Govt. company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-(a) “Expecting to be a public servant.” If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization, which he serves, to accept. (d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section.” 8. Section 7(d) defines the words “a motive or reward for doing” as a person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. Therefore, even if the petitioner was not in a position to do the work for which he had sought illegal gratification, even then his action of asking for an illegal gratification would fall within the term “motive or reward for doing”. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the petitioner could not have done anything for the complainant is unacceptable. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. 10. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the petitioner could not have done anything for the complainant is unacceptable. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. 10. However, it is clarified that any observations made by this Court shall not influence the final outcome of the trial. The trial Court is expected to objectively assess the evidence strictly in accordance with law.