Dismissed

Chiman Lal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2017CRR/1037/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a revision filed by two public servants challenged the framing of charges for corruption. The court held that the distinction between illegal gratification and electricity bills must be decided on merits after trial, which is premature at the charge framing stage.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed at the motion stage. Consequently, the I.A. for grant of stay was also dismissed.

Chiman Lal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 1037 of 2017

¶5

1. Chiman Lal Sahu S/o Premchand Sahu, Aged About 48 Years Junior Engineer, Electricity Center, Thankhamhariya, District Durg Chhattisgarh Present Address Assistant Engineer, T S G -9, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Shri Satyadhar Bandhe, S/o Shri Chaitram Bandhe, Aged About 30 Years Designation- Assistant Grade-Ill ( Contract ) Electricity Distributor Center, Thankhamhariya, District Durg Chhattisgarh Permanent Address Baroda, Thana Mana Camp, Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Bemetara Division Office.

¶7

---- Revisioners/Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Non Revisioner/Respondent

¶11

For Revisioners/applicants : Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

07.11.2017

¶15

Heard on admission.

¶16

This revision is directed against the order dated 21.7.2017, passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988), District Bemetara (CG) by which the said Court framed charges against both the revisioners/applicants under Sections 7, 13 (1) (D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988).

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisioners/applicants submits that the sanction granted for prosecution is not valid and therefore, the trial Court is not right in taking cognizance of the case. He further submits that Rs.5,000/-, as alleged to receive by both the applicants from one Ghanshyam Singh is the amount of electricity bill and the same is not received as illegal gratification, therefore, the order of the Special Court be set aside. He placed reliance on (1997) 7 SCC 622, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 677, Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and (2014) 14 SCC 295, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused/revisioner has committed an offence.

¶20

In view of this Court, merits of the case will be decided at final test of guilty and that test will not be applied while framing the charge. The documents produced with the memo of revision reveals that revisioner No.1- Chiman Lal Sahu was posted as Sub Engineer in Power Distribution Centre, Thankhamhariya, District Durg and being a Public Servant, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/from the complainant Ghanshyam Singh and the amount was

¶21

¶22

received by revisioner No.2- Satyadhar Bandhe. The case was reported to the Police Agency and one trap was organized and currency notes were seized from revisioner No.2 which were demanded by revisioner No.1.

¶23

In view of this Court whether the amount was paid as illegal gratification or whether it was paid against the electricity bill, is a matter to be decided on merits after completion of trial and the same cannot be decided at the time of framing of charge.

¶24

From the order of the trial Court it appears that regarding validity of sanction order, the Court has already passed its verdict that same is valid and cognizance is taken on the basis of sanction granted against both the revisioners and that order is not under challenge before this Court in the present revision.

¶25

The case law cited on behalf of the revisioners are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. At the time of framing of charge, it is not possible to form an opinion whether the revisioners are guilty of committing offence or not when there is prima facie material against them for proceeding with the case, the order of the trial Court cannot be faulted with.

¶26

In view of the above, the revision is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2017 for grant of stay is also dismissed. Sd/

¶27

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

sunita

Chiman Lal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chiman Lal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toman Singh Thakur Vs the State of M.P.

State Vs Jagannath @ Panna and Anr.

Dayalu Ram Miri Vs Gautam Das Miri

Malawati Sahu Vs State

Firanta @ Shanker Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh