RAM MAHESH YADAV Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON oral prayer of the petitioner, the present revision petition is treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner, Ram Mahesh Yadav, challenges the order dated 4th September, 2008 framing charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) read with Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. A separate charge has also been directed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) THE charge sheet pertains to FIR No. 33/2006, which was registered on a complaint made by Nikhlesh Sharma, who was selling flowers from a shop in flower market, Lado Sarai. He has specifically named the petitioner -Ram Mahesh Yadav, a Patwari of DDA. He has stated that on 15th April, 2006, the petitioner came to his shop and stated that the complainant's shop shall be demolished because of the court orders. He demanded Rs. 5,000/ - from Nikhlesh Sharma in case he did not want his shop to be demolished. At that time, another person Mohd. Sagir was also present. Mohd. Sagir owns a flower shop in the same flower market. Nikhlesh Sharma has stated that thereafter the petitioner -Ram Mahesh Yadav was regularly coming into his shop and demanding money. As per the prosecution case on 19th April, 2006, co -accused Bhram Singh, who was working as a security guard in DDA and attached to the petitioner, came to the shop of the complainant and told him that his shop was to be demolished that day and the police was coming to the flower market. He was told that in case he wants to save his shop, he should talk to the petitioner. The complainant and co -accused, Bhram Singh met Ram Mahesh Yadav and he again reiterated his demand for payment of Rs. 5,000/ - as bribe money. The complainant pleaded that he had only Rs. 2,000/ - and could not pay Rs. 5,000/ -. The petitioner asked the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/ - and pay the balance amount after 2 -3 days. The petitioner thereupon asked the co -accused Bhram Singh to collect Rs. 2,000/ - from the shop of the complainant after 2 -3 hours. The complainant made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Branch, a trap was laid after noting down the numbers of the currency notes and as per the charge sheet, the co -accused Bhram Singh was caught red handed with Rs. 2,000/ -, which were handed over by the complainant to Bhram Singh as bribe money.