The High Court at Ranchi dismissed a criminal revision against an order rejecting a discharge petition under Special Case No. 40 of 2015. The court held that the petitioner's not being caught with tainted money did not absolve him of liability given the surrounding circumstances of impersonation and involvement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 904 of 2017
Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Gaya Prasad Singh, R/o Masarhi, P.O. - Devhalie P.S. Ramgarh, District Bhabhua (Bihar)
… … Petitioner
Versus … The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance … Opp. Party ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
04/12.09.2017 Heard Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the vigilance.
This application is directed against the order dated 11.05.2017 passed in Special Case No. 40 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hazaribag whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner for his discharge has been rejected.
It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire allegation has been levelled against one Ramchandra Diwedi who was the Munshi of Itkhori Police Station and who was caught red handed accepting gratification of Rs. 1500/- from the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was never apprehended with any tainted money and merely because the complainant had disclosed about the petitioner by making certain imputations, the petitioner has been implicated.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
It appears from the impugned order dated 11.05.2017 that for the purpose for verification of the address of the complainant an amount of Rs. 1500/- was demanded by Ramchandra Diwedi. It has further been disclosed by the complainant that Ramchandra Diwedi had taken the name of the petitioner and when the complainant met the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1500/- was demanded as bribe for submitting a verification report.
-2-
After a written complaint was registered a trap was made pursuant to which Ramchandra Diwedi was caught red handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 1500/-. The circumstance which has led the complainant to make the complaint before the Vigilance Department do suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the process of accepting illegal gratification through Ramchandra Diwedi to the tune of Rs. 1500/-. Although Ramchandra Diwedi was a person who was caught red handed with the tainted money but the petitioner cannot be absolved from the criminal liability merely because of the fact that he was not caught with illegal gratification. The circumstance thus would point to the involvement of the petitioner which has been considered by the learned trial court while refusing to discharge the petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2017.
There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be absolved of criminal liability merely because he was not caught with tainted money despite implicating names being used by a caught bribe-taker.
Ajay Kumar Singh
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
