The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a criminal revision preferring to challenge the rejection of a discharge application under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found no illegality in the lower court's order.
Criminal revision under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. dismissed. No order as to costs.
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. Revision No. 100 of 2019
Sanjay Nishad ….. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI ….. Opp. Party ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate.
Reserved On : 08/07/2019 Pronounced On : 16/07/2019
Petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision invoking revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C. impuging the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in R.C. No. 1(A) / 2018-D (M.C.A. No. 1035 of 2018) registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act by learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected and the learned Special Judge has opined that ample material available on record for framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 7/13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The fact give rise to instant criminal revision is that a written complaint dated 28.01.2018 was submitted to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dhanbad by Subhash Bauri against Sanjay Nishad (petitioner), who is Clerk in the Office of Project Officer, Dobari Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad alleging that he has demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- for furnishing details of contribution of Provident Fund (PF) etc, in the name of his father Rupa Bauri, the then Support Mazdoor of Dobari Colliery under Bastacolla Area, BCCL, Dhanbad. It is further alleged that Sanjay Nishad had demanded Rs. 3,000/as first installment of bribe of total bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/for furnishing details of said P.F. contribution. The aforesaid complaint was verified by Inspector, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad and found to be correct and in pursuance thereto, report was submitted and R.C. was instituted against him being R.C. No. 01(A)/2017-D dated 29.01.2018-CBI, ACB, Dhanbad. Thereafter, he was trapped accepting Rs. 2,000/- and the tainted money were recovered from the right side pocket of his wearing pant.
-2-
Further, after investigtion, final form was submitted on 26.03.2018 and cognizance was taken and thereafter, petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. dated 08.06.2018 filed by the petitioner for his discharge was rejected by learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad. Hence, this criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence, rather a conspitacy was hatched up by one Narain Singh, a Union Leader namely, Anandmay Pal to take revenge, as the petitioner was posted in place of Narain Singh as P.F. Clerk at Dobari Colliery and the entire allegations are false and concocted and none of the offences are made out in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances.
It is further submitted that petitioner has never made any demand of illegal gratification from the complainant and mere recovery of the tainted money from the right side pocket of his wearing pant would not constitue any offence under Section 7/13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and so, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and petitioner is fit to be discharged from the case.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the CBI in this case. In the counter affidavit it is stated that it was found that petitioner has demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and directed the complainant to come on 30.01.2018 along with Rs. 2,000/- as first installment of bribe for processing and furnishing detials of P.F. contribution etc. of Rupa Bauri and caught raid handed while accepting Rs. 2,000/-.
After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned order, I find that there is no illegality in the order passed by learned Special Judge and there is no occasion to interfere with the order passed by learned Special Judge.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Sunil/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court can interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner's discharge application.
Whether the availability of material for framing charges justifies dismissing the criminal revision.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Nishad
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
