CRL.REV.P./555/2016 of STATE Vs RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.REV.P. 555/2016

STATE..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP.

versus

RAJEEV KUMAR ARORAThrough:Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv.

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R R%26.07.2017

The State seeks to challenge the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by thelearned Special Judge (P.C Act) (ACB), Central-05, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi in CC No.3/2016 arising out of FIR No.19/2012 registered with AntiCorruption Branch police station for the offences under Sections 7 & 13 ofthe Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988, whereby the respondent wasdischarged.

The respondent is alleged to have demanded Rs.50,000/- from oneK.K.Sharma, an officer with the transport department, for clearing hispension files when aforesaid K.K.Sharma was on the verge of retirement.The respondent is alleged to have asked for Rs.10,000/- as the firstinstallment to be paid on 05.11.2012.

On the complaint of K.K.Sharma, trap was laid and the respondentwas allegedly caught accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- on 05.11.2012 in

presence of one Deepak Gaur, witness.

After the lodging of the case against the respondent, the investigationproceeded and chargesheet was submitted against him under Sections 7 &13 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988.

At the stage of the framing of charge, the Trial Court took note of thefact that the witness before whom trap was laid, namely, Mr.Deepak Gaurhad stated during the course of investigation that in his presence, whenevermoney was attempted to be given to the respondent, he refused. However, heand K.K.Sharma, the complainant went to the room of the respondent andkept the phenolphthalein powder treated notes in the pocket of therespondent.

The Trial Court also took note of the fact that in the post raidproceedings which were recorded in the handwriting of Inspector KailashChand, different version was given by the aforesaid witness.

Thus the Trial Court was of the view that there was no demand of therespondent for any illegal gratification. The post trap proceeding was alsofound to have been signed only by the police officer recording it only andwas not counter signed by either the complainant or the witness.

Since proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non forthe offence under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention and Corruption Act,1988, absence of any cogent material regarding such demand would makethe prosecution case doubtful and in such an event the prosecution hasnecessarily to fail.

At the stage of framing of the charge, the Trial Court has the authorityto weigh the evidence, albeit, only for the limited purpose of finding out asto whether prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. If there is

grave suspicion against the accused which could be culled out from thematerials available before the Trial Court, charges ought to be framed. Incases of mere suspicion as distinguished from grave suspicion regarding thecomplicity of the accused and if two views about such complicity arepossible, then in that event it is only safe to discharge the accused.

The Trial Court on analyzing the factual materials and the lawregarding the same, came to the conclusion that the respondent ought not tobe charged for the offences under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention andCorruption Act, 1988 for his trial.

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The revision petition is dismissed.

JULY 26, 2017k

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J