Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2270 (RAJ)

Praveen Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-12-06

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota, whereby the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/W Section 13(2) of the Anti Corruption Act. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the police submitted a negative final report. The Court below issued a notice to the complainant. The complainant moved a protest petition. The Court below did not pass any order on the protest petition and on its own motion took cognizance against the petitioner and has directed the police to submit the charge-sheet. It is contended that the procedure adopted by the Court below is not in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. As per section 190 of Cr.P.C., 1973 a Magistrate can take cognizance upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. 4. It is argued that none of he provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 are applicable and the Court has erred in taking cognizance without examining the complainant who had filed a protest petition. It is also contended that when the police has submitted a negative final report, there was no justification for directing the police to submit the charge-sheet. It is also argued that there was no spectographic examination of voice. Hence, the report cannot be read against the petitioner. The amount was recovered from the pad and was not recovered from the person of the petitioner. The transcript is also not clear. 5. It is also contended that Trap Laying Officer, Neeraj Jain-Assistant Registrar and Gaurd Manak Ram have not given any evidence against the petitioner. It is also contended that a Spectography examination is required to be conducted and the conclusion is to be drawn only on the basis of auditory examination and spectography examination. Only phonetic and linguistic feature can be examined on the basis of auditory examination. It is argued that spectography examination is thus mandatory to come to the conclusion with regard to the matching of voice. Only phonetic and linguistic feature can be examined on the basis of auditory examination. It is argued that spectography examination is thus mandatory to come to the conclusion with regard to the matching of voice. With regard to voice prints, it is argued that voice prints experts have to compare spectography examination to arrive at the conclusion. Reliance in this regard has been placed on " Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr." AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1132 . 6. It is argued that the report is not conclusive but the same was made basis for taking cognizance. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on " H.S. Bains Director Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary, Finan. vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)." 1980 AIR 1883 , wherein, the Court has dealt with the provision of Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 Reliance has also been placed on " Messrs India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Another" 1989 (2) Crimes 483 and judgment of Allahabad High Court in "Hari Ram vs. State of U.P. and Anr." Criminal Revision No.695/2001 decided on 06.05.2016. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the petitioner has demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant which is evident from perusal of the transcript. Petitioner was Deputy Registrar of the University. The University has also charge-sheeted the petitioner for wiithholding one hundred sixty eight files of different institutions. It is also contended that change in colour of water on washing hands of the petitioner, points out towards him having accepted the money. 8. It is further contended that Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 does not bar a Magistrate from taking cognizance, even if a negative final report is submitted by the police. It is also contended that the Court below has considered the entire aspects of the matter and has gone through the negative final report as well as the protest petition and has passed orders under Section 190 (1)(D) Cr.P.C., 1973 which was within the competence of the Court. 9. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 661 "Chittaranjan Mirdha vs. Dulal Ghosh and Anr. 10. I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order and the judgment cited by counsel for the parties. 11. 9. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 661 "Chittaranjan Mirdha vs. Dulal Ghosh and Anr. 10. I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order and the judgment cited by counsel for the parties. 11. The Court while passing the impugned order, considered the negative final report as well as the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 deals with the case where complaints of facts constituting an offence is put up before a Magistrate. A Magistrate on receiving of the complaint, is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. A magistrate is required to examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 when he takes cognizance of offence on complaint. Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 refers to a situation where a police report is submitted before the Court. The police report may be a negative final report or it may be a report which points out towards commission of an offence. A magistrate is empowered to take cognizance upon a police report. 12. The Apex Court in "H.S. Bains Director Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary, Finan. vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)." (supra) has held that a Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., 1973 and issue process without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report. Court has further observed that he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200, if he adopts the third alternative. Thus it is clear that when there is a complaint case, a Magistrate may take cognizance and, thereafter record the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 Magistrate is not bound by the police report. In "Messrs India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Another" (supra), the Apex Court has held that Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance even if the police concludes that no case is made out against the accused. 13. In the present case, as per the allegations, the petitioner had demanded bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. In "Messrs India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Another" (supra), the Apex Court has held that Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance even if the police concludes that no case is made out against the accused. 13. In the present case, as per the allegations, the petitioner had demanded bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from a pad on his table, his hands were got washed, there was change in colour of water which points to his touching the bribe money. From the voice sample, it is evident that he had demanded money. It is true that spectography examination is required for coming to the conclusion with regard to the voice sample but that is not to be seen at the stage of cognizance. The judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner "Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr." (supra) does not have any applicability at the initial stage of taking of cognizance. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Court is not empowered to direct the police to submit charge-sheet and the Court is not empowered to direct the Investigating Officer to make available the copy of the challan to the petitioner Suffice to say that the order which is challenged before this Court is dated 05.02.2018, wherein the Court has taken cognizance and has directed the Public Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. The order vide which Investigating Officer has been directed to supply a copy of the challan paper is not impugned before this Court, hence I am not inclined to accede to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in this respect. 14. I do not find any error in impugned orders so as to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Hence the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands disposed.