Dismissed

Barki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition filed by Barki Devi and Vijay Prasad challenging an order dismissing their discharge petition was dismissed by the High Court. The court held that the trial court's order was well reasoned and sufficient materials existed to frame charges against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned order dismissing the discharge petition.

Barki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 252 of 2023

¶3

Barki Devi 2. Vijay Prasad ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. ..... … Opposite Party --------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.

¶6

¶7

05/ 23.08.2023 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Sp.P.P. for the State.

¶8

This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad, in Spl. (Vig.) Case No. 08 of 2019, whereby, he has been pleased to reject the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners.

¶9

The prosecution case in a nut shell is that one written complaint has been launched by the complainant namely Dular Ram Murmu on 11.03.2019 alleging therein that construction of one PCC road has been approved on 1^st August, 2016, in the Jaspur Panchayat at Village Jago Gram Sabha under 14th financial commission under Scheme no.1116/17 from Budha Buri Than to house of Matlu Marandi and for which estimated amount of Rs. 299,100/- was entrusted to the beneficiary committee of Jago in which Complainant was President. He further states that construction of the road was started as per the direction of the than panchayat secretary Dojan Marandi and Mukhiya Barki Devi and the complainant party opened an account in Canara Bank in the name of beneficiary committee Jago to receive the allotted amount.

¶10

It is further stated that on 06.02.2017 and amount of Rs. 2 lacs has been drawn by the than Panchyat Sewak and Mukhiya Barki Devi and same has been transferred to the complainant. On 05.08.2017 a cheque of Rs 75,000/- has been issued in the joint signature of Badki Devi and Vijay Prasad. He further stated that rest amount Rs 7230/- would be paid after deducting income tax and for the same a cheque of Rs. 7230/- has been issued and handed over it to the complainant and told to get the sign of Barki Devi on it.

¶11

It was further alleged that after calculating Rs. 75,000/- and

¶12

-2-

¶13

Rs 7230/- a sum of Rs. 8000/- has been demanded at the rate of 10% of total paid amount and claimed 50% for himself and 50% for Badki Devi.

¶14

Matter was reported to the ACB, Dhanbad was verified by the Inspector, ACB, Dhanbad and report to S.P. upon which FIR has been lodged against the petitioners under section 7 of P.C. Act.

¶15

It is further stated that pre-trap memo was prepared and thereafter a post- trap memorandum has been prepared on 14.03.2019 where it was alleged that both the accused has received the bribe money and their fingers were treated with phenolphthalein powder.

¶16

That it is further alleged that a seizure list of was prepared stating recovery of Rs. 4500/- from the possession of Vijay Prasad and similarly an amount of Rs 4100/- has been seized from the Badki Devi. And for seizure list has also been prepared.

¶17

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been wrongly implicated in the case under the conspiracy hatched by one Sudhir Mandal, who is the husband of the Up-mukhiya. He submits that all these things have happened due to political vendetta and the learned court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

¶18

Mr. Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that a pre-trap memo was prepared on 13.03.2019 to lay the trap at about 16.30 hours and thereafter a post-trap memorandum was prepared on 14.03.2019 from 21.00 to 22.00 hours when both the accused were found in possession of tainted notes as a bribe. He submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order.

¶19

The court has perused the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 and finds that the learned court has elaborately dealt with the allegations and thereafter come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 41,00/- in different nomination from both the petitioners were recovered.

¶20

In view of the above, it appears that there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the petitioners. It is well settled that for discharging the accused, the court is not required to rove into and come

¶21

-3-

¶22

to the conclusion that the case is made out or not. From the impugned order, it transpires that the said order is well reasoned order and the entire materials against the petitioners as well as the other co-accused have been dealt with.

¶23

As such, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

Amitesh/-

Barki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Kumar Chaubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nripendra Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through CBI

Pralay Pal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.