Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1908 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-12

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 22.06.2018 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur, whereby the Court has taken cognizance under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has charged the petitioner for the said offence. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a Patwari. Complainant applied for bonafide residence certificate. The form was returned to the complainant with a report that bonafide residence certificate cannot be issued as family of the complainant was residing in Agra (U.P.) for last 30 years. Son of complainant Punit Choudhary's birth place is Agra (U.P.) and his education is also from Agra (U.P.). 3. It is contended that from the transcript dated 31.08.2010 prior to that on 29.08.2010 itself, petitioner had refused to give bonafide residence certificate and had returned the form on 31.08.2010 that no work was pending before the petitioner. 4. It is contended that on reading of the entire transcript the factum of demand of Rs. 2,800/- is not revealed. It is also contended that matter is of year 2010. charge-sheet has been filed after a lapse of more than five years. There is no iota of an evidence against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry or with regard to pendency of work before him, hence offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on " N.S. Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan", 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 948 . Reliance has also been placed on " Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra" AIR 2002 SC 564 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing of charge the Judge cannot act merely as post office or mouthpiece of prosecution, can discharge the accused if no grave suspicion is against him. The Judge has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prime facie case against the accused has been made out. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present revision petition. He has placed reliance on " Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. The Judge has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prime facie case against the accused has been made out. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present revision petition. He has placed reliance on " Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)" AIR 2010 SC 1446 , wherein the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. 7. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that from the transcript, it is evident that bribe was demanded from the complainant. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reads as under:- "Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public 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 Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government 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." 10. In the present case in hand, complainant himself when he moved to the Anti Corruption Department mentioned that petitioner had returned the form without making report. From the transcript which is available on record, it is evident that some prior transactions pertaining to bank file was pending between the parties and matter pertained to Rs. 4,850/- out of which as per the petitioner, Rs. From the transcript which is available on record, it is evident that some prior transactions pertaining to bank file was pending between the parties and matter pertained to Rs. 4,850/- out of which as per the petitioner, Rs. 4,000/- was to be paid to the bank and in the transcript he has explained the total amount which was payable by the complainant. There is no specific demand for making a bonafide residence certificate, rather, petitioner had mentioned in the transcript that as the complainant and his son are residing in Agra (U.P.), a bonafide residence certificate cannot be issued. No trap proceedings were conducted in the case and the matter has remained pending with the Anti Corruption for a period of more than five years. There is no specific demand of money by petitioner and on the date of transcript no matter was pending before him. 11. In view of the same, it is evident from bare reading of the transcript that offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be made out against the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, there being no ground for presuming that the accused has committed any offence, the order vide which charge has been framed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 13. The Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 22.06.2018 is quashed. Petitioner is discharged of the alleged offence. Stay application stands disposed.