LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-347

VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. C B I

Decided On May 14, 2007
VIRENDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
C B I Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is aggrieved by an order on charge, made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; he has been charged with commission of offences under Sections 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act") and under Sections15 read with 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts are that according to the complainant, one Shri Verghese, a dispute had existed between him and his 11 workers regarding their claim under the Minimum Wages Act. The dispute was settled and copies of the settlement alongwith affidavits of the claimants had been filed before the accused, who was required to pass appropriate orders in terms of these settlements. He did not pass the order and issued notice to the complainant threatening to impose a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs in the case; he sought for a bribe of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The conversion between the two was recorded, in respect of the demand. The prosecution had also sought to trap the petitioner accused, but that proved abortive. The trial court, after considering the materials, framed the charges through the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the charges could not have been framed, as there were no material in support of the allegations. It was urged that the trap initially laid was unsuccessful, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner having demanded or accepted any bribe could not be sustained. He further argued that nothing existed on record suggestive of the petitioner having indulged in conduct that led to wrongful gain to someone, or wrongful loss to the government, or the public, or someone else. Therefore in the absence of plausible evidence, necessary to fulfil the ingredients of the offence, the impugned order could not be sustained.