Allowed

Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Hazaribagh

Jharkhand HC16 Nov 2022Cr.M.P./1992/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing a Section 482 CrPC petition. The Court found the allegations groundless, noting the complainant faced multiple corruption charges while the petitioner was an enquiry officer. Inconsistencies in account timelines and suspicious trap details supported quashing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and criminal proceeding quashed; I.A. No. 5527 of 2022 disposed of.

Pramod Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Jharkhand through… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 1992 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Pramod Kumar Agrawal … …. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hazaribagh … …. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner : M/s Rupesh Singh & Amrendra Pradhan, Advocates For the A.C.B. : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

¶8

¶9

C.A.V. ON 14.09.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 16.11.2022

¶10

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of entire criminal proceedings with all consequences, in A.C.B. [Hazaribagh P.S. Case No.26 of 2017] including the order taking cognizance under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and order dated 24.02.2020 whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶11

The FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint received from one Digambar Singh, Forest Range Officer, Bagodar, wherein it has been alleged that for the verification of accounts for the Financial Year 2015-16 submitted by the complainant in the capacity of Forest Range Officer, Bagodar Afforestation Range, the accused who was the then Assistant Conservator of Forest demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1 Lakh. After due verification of the complaint, the FIR was registered. Thereafter a trap team was constituted and after completing the pre-trap formalities on 27.06.2017, the trap team first went to the office of the accused, Pramod Kumar Agarwal where he was not present at that time. When the informant contacted him telephonically, he informed that he was returning from Kanheri and asked him to come near P.W.D Cross Road. At around 5.30, he asked the complainant to hand-over the amount and the same was given in a white envelope which was taken by the accused and kept in a plastic bag besides him. The accused was nabbed by the ACB Trap team and both of his hands were washed in the Sodium Carbonate Solution on which they turned pink which was separately seized. The money was kept in a plastic bag nearby which was formally seized.

¶12

The Police after completing the investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the accused under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 4. The main plea of this petitioner is that he has been falsely and

¶13

¶14

maliciously been implicated in this case because he had refused to favour the complainant in a departmental proceeding in a corruption case.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant Digambar Singh was an Assistant Conservator of Forest and there were several allegation against him. One criminal case namely, Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code for embezzlement of huge public money to the tune of Rs.2,52,72,514.97 and also in Hazaribagh Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016 under Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act) in which there was a recovery of Rs. 31.5 Lakh from his house and the charge sheet was submitted. He was also involved in Hazaribagh Vigilance Case No. 49 /2016 registered under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein charge sheet was also submitted against him 10.11.2016. In this case Rs 31.5 lakh cash had been recovered from his house.

¶16

In one of the departmental enquiry set up against the complainant, this petitioner was also an enquiry officer. On Enquiry the complainant was indicted. Following the enquiry departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charges of financial irregularity. In sum and substance the complainant was a man of low integrity and had amassed huge properties and had also married twice during the lifetime of his first wife being a public servant. The present case has been filed to wreck vengeance against the petitioner as he was one on the enquiry officer against the complainant in many cases.

¶17

The falsity of allegation will be revealed from the fact that in the FIR itself, the main cause for demanding illegal gratification by this petitioner /accused, allegedly was for the verification of the accounts submitted by the complainant for the year 2015–16 during his posting at Bagodar, as District forest Officer. When during investigation, a query was made by the I.O by his letter dated 1.7.2017, the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh (East) Division replied vide his office letter no.2625 dated 1.7.2017 that the complainantDigambar Singh had submitted the account of 2015–16 to his office, which was found erroneous, hence the account was returned in the original to the complainant by office letter no.2824 dated 11.8.2016 and till 1.7.2017 no account had been submitted by the complainant. It is argued that no account was ever placed before the petitioner for verification nor was the petitioner

¶18

¶19

competent authority as Assistant Conservator of Forrest to verify the ledgers and accounts. This being so, there was no cause for making such alleged demand from the complainant for the verification of the non-existent accounts. The falsity of the charge will also be revealed from the fact that the demand from the complainant Digambar Singh was made for verification of the Accounts with respect to Bagodar Afforestation Scheme. However, from paragraph 67 of the case diary, it will appear that illegal gratification demand has been made for giving up to date Account with respect to Ante Gradation Scheme.

¶20

It is further submitted that the sanction has not taken from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest whereas the sanction has been accorded by the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶21

The mode of trap which was laid at P.W.D. Crossing in Hazaribagh is also not above suspicion. It has been submitted that the conduct of the prosecution and the manner in which the petitioner was trapped and falsely implicated in this case is evident from the fact that the said packet containing the currency notes was neither handed over to the petitioner at his office nor at his residence. As per the prosecution case, currency note was being given in Bolero Jeep in a plastic packet and if it was so then it has not been explained as to how the petitioner had touched the currency note which was smeared with phenolphthalein power and later on washing the hands it became pink.

¶22

The learned counsel on behalf of the state has defended the impugned order and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner accused, principally on the ground that at the stage of framing of charge only thing to be seen whether the allegations if remain unrebutted will be sufficient for conviction of the accused. Detailed scrutiny of evidence on record is not to be entered at this stage. There are sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Reliance has been placed on (2015)14 SCC186.

¶23

Progression of a case from the stage of the FIR to that of trial and finally to conviction of an accused is a stage wise scaling up of the suspicion and the corresponding materials and evidence in support of it. While at the stage of lodging of the FIR mere suspicion is sufficient, for cognizance, the degree increases and there should be grave suspicion, and further at the stage of framing of charge if the suspicion is groundless and without the foundational material, the accused can be discharged of the offence. This is a stage where the probative value of evidence is beyond the purview of the court considering

¶24

¶25

the discharge petition. If the grounds are such, which if remains unrebutted can warrant conviction, charge has to be framed. There lies a difference between allegations and the grounds on which such allegations are made. On mere allegations a person cannot be put up on trial. Criminal prosecution is serious affair and any citizen cannot be hauled up in a long and protracted litigation on flimsy grounds only to wreck vendetta. It is for this reason that salutary provisions of discharge have been provided under the Code. The materials collected during investigation has to be looked into, to see whether they are sufficient to prosecute a public servant on the charges of corruption. The degree of scrutiny of the materials collected during investigation, in the light of the allegations made, is not as high as that during conclusion of a trial, but nevertheless it is not an empty formality, but judicial application of mind to the materials on which the prosecution is proposed.

¶26

The principles governing discharge has been expounded in 2022 SCC On Line 1150 State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs R. Soundirarasu wherein it has been held :

¶27

“75. The ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C., are therefore fairly well settled. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be “groundless”. The Section mandates that the Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, if after (i) considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, (ii) examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii) giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, i.e., either there is no legal evidence or that the facts are such that no offence is made out at all. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage - the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless.

¶28

76. This would not be the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution-the exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused can be said to be “groundless”.

¶29

¶30

77. The word “ground” according to the Black's Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the accused or foundation for the admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word “groundless” would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever”.

¶31

Asim Shariff v. NIA , (2019) 7 SCC 148 :

¶32

“18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a

¶33

prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record”.

¶34

Here in the present case the complainant is a person of doubtful integrity who was facing multiple criminal cases on the charges of embezzlement and corruption. The demand of illegal gratification was allegedly made by the accused for verification of account in an afforestation scheme claimed to be submitted by the complainant for the year 2015–16, when he was posted as Forest Range Officer at Bagodar. The Divisional Forest Officer by his letter dated 1.7.2017 to the investigating officer has gone on record to state that the account that had been submitted by the complainant had been returned to him by letter dated 11.8.2016, that is much before the filing of the present case on 27.6.2017. If the account submitted by the complainant was not pending in the Department, then how did the question of making a demand

¶35

¶36

of illegal gratification for its verification arise. If the making of very demand is groundless, then launching of prosecution will be an exercise in futility with predictable outcome of the trial. Further, I find that the mode and manner of trap also raises several questions. It is said that the place chosen for receiving the amount was a main road PWD crossing, which is a public place where the accused came on Bolero vehicle. The cash amount was given to the accused in an envelope which was kept by him in a plastic bag. The trap team apprehended the accused on spot immediately thereafter, and then both his hands were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, on which fingers of his right hand turned pink. It remains a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, as to how the fingers of the petitioner/accused turned pink when the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder were not even touched by him.

¶37

The allegation of making demand is groundless and I do not find these materials to be sufficient for launching prosecution against the petitioner/ accused on a complaint made by a person who was himself facing criminal prosecution and departmental proceeding on charges of corruption and embezzlement in which the petitioner was an examining enquiry officer.

¶38

Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and the criminal proceeding is quashed.

¶39

This criminal misc. petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A. No. 5527 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶40

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶41

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 16^th November, 2022 AFR / AKT

Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Hazaribagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Hazaribagh

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

Mahamati Murmu Vs Sonamani Murmu

Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs Annpurna Devi

Josphine Kachhap Vs the Khunti Ursuline Society Trustee

Swami Nandan Singh Vs Priya Singh Alias Priya Bhardwaj

Sanjay Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Shivam Vs the State of Jharkhand