Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 23 (RAJ)

Hukmat Rai Tanwani v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-05

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. By way of this Criminal Misc.Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 115/2014 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 10 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and Section 120-B IPC to his extent. 2. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner as a public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused and he demanded and obtained an amount of Rs. 500/- as bribe through co-accused in lieu of to issue T.C.C. to the complainant-Shri Yadram Golada. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation even in the complaint made by the complainant against the petitioner for demand and acceptance of bribe and it is an admitted fact that no recovery of any kind was made from the petitioner and if the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be correct at its face value even then no offence is disclosed to have been committed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that for an offence to be made out under the provisions of the Act, it is to be shown that demand of bribe was made by a public servant and such bribe was obtained by him, but in the present case it is not the case of prosecution itself that any demand was made by the petitioner and bribe was obtained by him. It was also submitted that merely because co-accused-Shri Mukesh Kumar claiming to be an agent of the Transport Department obtained some money from the complainant for issuance of T.C.C. in his favour and he was found present in the office in which petitioner was at the relevant time was working as Lower Division Clerk, it cannot be said that the aforesaid amount was demanded and obtained by the co-accused in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy entered between him and the petitioner. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and evidence collected during investigation including the trap proceedings led by the ACB submitted that although the petitioner as a public servant did not directly demand bribe from the complainant and obtained it and recovery has also not been effected from him but prima facie it is clear that the petitioner and co-accused entered into criminal conspiracy to obtain bribe from the complainant for issuance of T.C.C. in his favour and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy co-accused-Shri Mukesh Kumar initially demanded and obtained Rs. 300/- from the complainant and lateron he was caught red hand ed while accepting Rs. 200/- as bribe from complainant for petitioner. It was further submitted that the work of issuance of T.C.C. to the complainant was pending before the petitioner as LDC, R.T.O., Jaipur and the required certificate was to be filled-up by the petitioner personally but in fact it was filled-up by co-accused-Shri Ramesh Chand while sitting in the office of the petitioner and that fact alone prima facie is indication of the fact that bribe was obtained for and on behalf of the petitioner. It was also submitted that apart from Rs. 500/- as bribe, an amount of Rs. 3,050/- was also recovered from an iron rack placed near the chair of the petitioner and no satisfactory explanation could be given by the petitioner for the aforesaid amount. It was submitted that petitioner allowed outsiders to work for him without any authority and sufficient evidence is available on record to show that the petitioner was in habit of demanding and obtaining bribe as a public servant through other persons from persons who come to his office for their respective work. 5. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the evidence collected during investigation which has been produced before me by way of case diary, I prima facie found that there is sufficient evidence available on record showing involvement of the petitioner in the incident. From the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected during investigation it cannot be said that essential ingredients to constitute the offences for which the FIR has been registered against the petitioner are not disclosed even prima facie. From the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected during investigation it cannot be said that essential ingredients to constitute the offences for which the FIR has been registered against the petitioner are not disclosed even prima facie. The present case is not of that rare category in which the FIR is required to be quashed at this initial stage of the proceedings. 6. Although, in the FIR no allegation of any kind was made against the petitioner and even name of petitioner does not appear in it but it was specifically alleged in the complaint that co-accused-Shri Mukesh Kumar claiming to be a clerk working in the office of R.T.C.Jaipur is demanding Rs. 500/- from the complainant as bribe in lieu of issuance of T.C.C. in his favour. From the material made available on record, it is shown that Rs. 300/- were obtained by co-accused-Shri Mukesh Kumar from the complainant in the evening of 14.3.2014 and he was caught red-handed while accepting remaining amount of Rs. 200/- as bribe in the office of R.T.C., Jaipur in presence of two independent witnesses and members of the raiding party. On further investigation it was found that the work of issuance of T.C.C. to complainant was pending with the petitioner, who at that time was working as LDC in the aforesaid office and the aforesaid amount was demanded and obtained by the co-accused for and on behalf of the petitioner. On investigation co-accused-Shri Mukesh Kumar and Ramesh Chand were found present in the aforesaid office without any authority and they in fact were acting for and on behalf of the petitioner. An amount of Rs. 3,050/- was also recovered from an iron rack placed near the chair of the petitioner and no plausible explanation could be furnished by the petitioner for the aforesaid amount. I am of the considered view that prosecution must get opportunity to prove the charges against the petitioner during trial. 7. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. 8. The stay application also stands dismissed.