Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3 (UTT)

Trepan Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-01-03

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Challenge in this petition is made to the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2018, State vs. Trepan Singh Rana, pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance/First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. 2. In the special sessions trial, on 04.08.2018, charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d) and Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). The order dated 04.08.2018 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2018, Trepan Singh Rana vs. State and others (for short, “revision”), which was decided by this Court on 12.01.2021. This order was further challenged by the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.2659 of 2021, Trepan Singh Rana vs. the State of Uttarakhand. The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as may be available under the law. 3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy has already been narrated by this Court in the revision. In para 3, the Court reproduced it as hereunder:- “3. Facts necessary to understand the present controversy, briefly stated, are as follows; Informant Janak Singh Rawat was awarded a contract of constructing a portion of a road in District Uttarkashi. On 06.03.2017, the informant gave a report to Vigilance Department. According to it, the revisionist is Junior Engineer on the job but he is not measuring the work done by the informant. Although, the informant had completed the work amounting to about Rs.70 Lakh. The revisionist is demanding Rs.1 Lakh as bribe to conduct the measurement. Based on this complaint given by informant to the Vigilance Department, Bhaskar Lal Sah, Inspector, Vigilance made a preliminary assessment on 07.03.2017 and recommended that it is a case fit for trap. Accordingly, on 08.03.2017, a trap was laid in the presence of witnesses and the revisionist was arrested red-handed while taking Rs.50,000/- bribe from the informant Janak Singh Rawat. His hands were washed in the prescribed solution, which turned pink. A trap memo was prepared and based on it, Case Crime No. 01 of 2017 under Section 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was lodged. After trap, the hand-wash of the revisionist was sent for forensic examination, which confirmed the case. A trap memo was prepared and based on it, Case Crime No. 01 of 2017 under Section 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was lodged. After trap, the hand-wash of the revisionist was sent for forensic examination, which confirmed the case. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the revisionist under Section 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Act. At the stage of framing of charge, an application for discharge was filed by the revisionist, which was rejected by the impugned order. It is impugned herein.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the revision was preferred by the petitioner, but the revision was not maintainable, therefore, the finding recorded in the revision may not bar the petitioner to raise the issue again. 6. Learned counsel had also raised the following points in his submissions:- (i) The SSP (Vigilance) was interested in the trap. He himself managed the trap and was present. (ii) When the informant informed the SSP (Vigilance) about the demand allegedly made by the petitioner, FIR ought to have been lodged, but it was not so lodged. (iii) In FIR, the denominations of the currency notes offered to the petitioner has not been given. (iv) The denominations of the currency notes have been given in a letter written to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “FSL”) and in the FSL report, but the FSL report is not admissible under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) because the Scientific Officer is not a person named therein. (v) The prosecution is mala fide because the informant was a contractor, who was pressuring the petitioner to clear his running bills without any work, which the petitioner declined. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the prosecution is totally mala fide and para 102 (7) in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, is attracted in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in sub-para (7) of para 102 observed as hereunder :- “102. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the prosecution is totally mala fide and para 102 (7) in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, is attracted in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in sub-para (7) of para 102 observed as hereunder :- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) ………………….. (2) ………………….. (3) ………………….. (4) ………………….. (5) ………………….. (6) ………………….. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Apart from it, learned counsel has also argued that while framing charges, the court should also see the chances of conviction. In support of his contention, learned counsel also referred the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979)3 SCC 4 . In the case of Prafull Kumar Samal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as hereunder:- “10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge : (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 9. In the revision, all these points which have been raised by the petitioner today, had already been raised and discussed by this Court. 10. The arguments made on behalf of the petitioner have been incorporated in para 4 of the judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2021 of the revision, which is reproduced as hereunder:- “4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that the revisionist has been falsely implicated. He is a very sincere officer who indicated deficiency in the work that was being done by the informant and that is how the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel raised the following points in his arguments; (i) Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Vigilance Commission Manuals prescribe as to how preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. In such matters, videography must be done to ensure transparency, but, it is not done in this case. Not only this, in various cases, the Courts have given guidelines to ensure video recording of such acts, but it was not done. (ii) Non-recording of video of the trap vitiates the entire proceedings. In such matters, videography must be done to ensure transparency, but, it is not done in this case. Not only this, in various cases, the Courts have given guidelines to ensure video recording of such acts, but it was not done. (ii) Non-recording of video of the trap vitiates the entire proceedings. If the law provides for video recording, in the absence of it, the proceedings should be held to be vitiated. (iii) The preliminary inquiry has to be detailed and if required, evidence of the witnesses may be recorded, but, it has not been done in the instant case. (iii) The revisionist had indicated deficiency in the work of the informant and thereafter false report was filed. (iv) Not only the revisionist, but the local villagers had also agitated against the informant. An inquiry was conducted and an FIR was lodged against the informant. (v) The prosecution is malafide and on this ground alone, the revisionist deserves to be discharged. There are no grounds to frame charge. The evidence that is collected is not sufficient to frame charge. ” 11. The arguments that the finding recorded in the revision does not bar the petitioner to raise the same issue again for non-maintainability of the revision is without any merits at all. It is the petitioner, who challenged the order framing charge in the revision. Now, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that the revision was not maintainable. Even otherwise, if the facts have been already considered in a legal proceedings which has attained finality, the same issue may not be permitted to be agitated at the subsequent stage of the same proceeding or in a separate proceeding, otherwise, it would an endless process and the litigation may not ever come the conclusion. 12. Reference has been made to the FSL report to argue that it is not admissible. In fact, Section 293 of the Code does not make any report admissible or not admissible. This is a domain under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. What Section 293 of the Code permits, is that, the reports of certain Government Experts may be used in evidence, even without calling the experts in the court. 13. Sub-Section (2) of Section 293 of the Code, gives jurisdiction to the Court to summon such experts as to the subject matter of the report. That stage has yet not come. What Section 293 of the Code permits, is that, the reports of certain Government Experts may be used in evidence, even without calling the experts in the court. 13. Sub-Section (2) of Section 293 of the Code, gives jurisdiction to the Court to summon such experts as to the subject matter of the report. That stage has yet not come. There is a report of FSL, which would fall for consideration during trial. If the report does not fall within the parameters of Section 293 Sub-Section (4) of the Code, the court may at an appropriate stage call the experts under Sub-Section (2) of Section 293 of the Code. That also does not give any reason to this Court for making any intervention at this stage. In so far as mala fide and other grounds are concerned, they have widely been raised before this Court in the revision and extensively discussed by this Court. This Court does not see any reason to re-evaluate to consider those arguments. 14. In the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been summed up the guidelines, which may be applicable at the time of framing of charge. This Court vide its order dated 12.01.2021, passed in the revision, categorically concluded that, “Having considered these factors, this Court is of the view that the learned court below rightly held that there are sufficient reasons to frame charge against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Act. There is no reason to make any interference, therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed.” 15. In view of the above, this Court does not see any reason to make any intervention and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. The petition is dismissed.