MAGANLAL DADDULAL PAIGWAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 7, read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120 of Indian Penal Code in Special Case No. 10/2003 (Old No. 8/1993) in Special Court for C. B. I. (Prevention of Corruption Act), Nagpur. THE allegations against the applicant are that while working as Senior Manager (Projects) with non applicant No. 3 i. e. M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. M. I. D. C. Hingna, Nagpur he was trapped while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from non applicant No. 2 - M. K. Roy, Proprietor M/s. G & Roy Enterprises, Nagpur. It is alleged that it was a bribe accepted as a part of the total amount demanded of Rs. 6,50,000/- by one J. C. Agrawal, General Manager, (Projects) of non applicant No. 3 According to the prosecution, the non applicant No. 2 was to receive the amount of Rs. 27,86,582/- from the non applicant No. 3 and when the dues were to be demanded; one J. C. Agrawal working with non applicant No. 3 was approached by non applicant No. 2; and he made demand of Rs. 6,50,000/- for clearing the bills. It is alleged that the said amount was to be received by the applicant - accused. THE trap was arranged. During the trap, in Ashoka Restaurant; he was caught while accepting Rs. 10,000/- by the CBI authorities. After due investigation the applicant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. THE said J. C. Agrawal, however, was not prosecuted on the ground that no evidence could be collected against him. THE applicant has moved this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the said proceedings in Special Case No. 10/2003 (Old case No. 8/1993) pending on the file of Special Judge, C. B. I. Nagpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant Shri. Voditel has vehementally contended that the applicant had moved an application under section 319 of Cri. P. C. for impleading said J. C. Agrawal as an accused and his application was rejected. According to him, there was no direct transaction between the accused applicant and non applicant No. 2, so as to call for demand of any bribe. According to him, FIR and circumstances in this case reflects total improbability of the incident alleged by the prosecution. To mention a few, the trap was linked with the allegations against J. C. Agrawal and he has not been made accused. He was asked to be made as an accused; but respondent CBI told that it is not interested in making him as party accused as there was no evidence that could be collected against him. It is also contended that amount of Rs. 10,000/- can not be treated as a bribe amount, as it was part of the amount which was due and payable, in view of the documents shown by applicant for which there was already a demand by the applicant to respondent No. 2 out of the personal transaction. He has further submitted that omission in the sanction order regarding the amount payable to non applicant No. 2 and the discrepancy therein leads to the conclusion that the prosecution of applicant was spiteful and was not based on true facts. According to the learned counsel, the explanation of the respondent CBI that there was no evidence against J. C. Agrawal and therefore he was not impleaded as an accused, is most unconvincing. He has also submitted that there is perversity in the prosecution of the applicant sans the prosecution of the said J. C. Agrawal. This is a classic case of false prosecution without any substantial material on record. It is abuse of process of law and therefore calls for quashing of the charge-sheet and a proceeding; under section 482, Cr. P. C. He has relied on (State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal & others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335) to contend that as the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for prosecution of the applicant and the criminal proceeding the present applicant is so malicious and with ulterior motive and for wreaking vengeance against the applicant that, it calls for quashing. He has also relied on the decision of the apex court in (State by Special Police Establishment Vs. D. Krishnamurthy, 1995 Supp3 SCC 702) to derive a support for contention that the evidence in this case is lacking against applicant and therefore, the proceeding has to be quashed in the interest of justice. He has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in (State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and others Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, 2004 8 SCC 40) to contend that there is no reasonable connection between the act of the accused - applicant and that of his official duties. Further, he has relied on (Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujrat, 1997 7 SCC 622) to contend that the sanction order issued in this case is bad as there was no indication that the authority had applied its mind while granting sanction. Similarly, he has relied on Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Vs. Pandey Ajay Bhushan & others, 1998 1 SCC 205 to contend that the sanction should reflect that the accused had acted in the official capacity. Besides this he has also relied on Virendernath Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 11 SCC 688 to contend that evidence on record that is appearing in the charge-sheet does not lead to the positive conclusion that there is material for framing the charge against the accused applicant. Thus, mainly according to learned counsel, because J. C. Agrawal is not made an accused, the prosecution is bad inasmuch as the very basis of the prosecution case is shattered. Further the sanction order which is produced on record, does not show the application of mind and lastly on merits, the charge-sheet in the present case is not tenable as there was no possibility of his being asking for a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and it was personal transaction payment of part of a loan between applicant and complainant (non applicant No. 2 ).

(3.) It is necessary to note that when the question of quashing of charge-sheet is examined, it has to be shown that no offence is made out on the basis of the charge-sheet which is filed. IT is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or even for that matter quashing of charge-sheet, ultimate reliability of evidence, can not be considered too meticulously. What is to be seen is whether prima facie any offence is made out on the basis of charge-sheet and the relevant documents submitted along with it.