Dismissed

Narayan Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2012CRLMP/292/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order dismissing a miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR for corruption. The court held that absent files do not preclude conviction as the offence of taking a bribe for not doing something understood under Section 7(d) of the PC Act remains intact.

What did the court decide?

The misc. petition and stay petition are disposed of without allowing any assistance to the petitioner.

Narayan Singh Vs State and Ors. — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 292/2011 (Narayan Singh Sandhu Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶2

DATE OF ORDER : 07.02.2012

¶3

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶4

Dr. Pushpendra Singh with Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Rawal, Public Prosecutor.

¶5

The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.08/2011, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur, Out-post Rajsamand for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having no work of the complainant pending with him and that the petitioner did not take any bribe from the complainant. He further submits that the relevant files which have been referred in the FIR are not taken on record, therefore, the FIR impugned deserves to be quashed.

¶7

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the FIR impugned and have considered the arguments advanced at the bar.

¶8

In the opinion of this Court, the files in relation whereto the bribe was taken will obviously be taken into account by the Investigating Officer when the charge-sheet is being filed. If the same are not taken on record, then, the petitioner is always at liberty to send the same to the Investigating Officer through proper channel and despite that if the documents are not taken on record, then, the petitioner is always at liberty to place the same on record by way of his defence. The submission of the learned counsel that no work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner, therefore, the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out against the petitioner cannot be said to be accepted ex facie in view of the definition of Section 7(d) of the Act, which reads as under :

¶9

“7(d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.”

¶10

In view of the aforesaid, this misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶11

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶12

ms rathore

Narayan Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Singh v. State and Ors.

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.Babita Jalota Vs State and Anr.

Veena Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Kailash Chandra and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Bhanwar Lal and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Lt.Col.Retd.Sher Singh Vs State and Ors.

Smt.Sulochana Vs Lalit Kumar and Anr.