PRADEEP CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 02/05/12 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Special Trial No.01/12 whereby charge under Section 7 read with Sections 12, 13(1) (d) (i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 201 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused,this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as driver on daily wages. It was not the duty of the petitioner to do demarcation of any land. The petitioner neither demanded nor accepted the bribe from the complainant for doing demarcation of his land. The petitioner has no connection in any manner with the alleged offence. According to him, prima facie, no case under Section 7 read with Section 12, 13(1) (d) (i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 201 of IPC is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed an illegality in framing charge against the petitioner, which deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following decisions.:

(3.) IT is borne out from the record that the petitioner was driver and the coaccused, Raejsh Shrivastava was Revenue Inspector in the Tehsil office, Vidisha at the relevant point of time. The Revenue Inspector, Rajesh Shrivastava asked the complainant, Rajendra Kumar to pay Rs.15,000/ for the purpose of demarcation of his land as illegal gratification. The complainant approached the Special Police Establishment, Office of the Vigilance Department in Bhopal and informed them about the illegal demand by filing a complaint. A tape record was given by the Special Police Establishment to the complainant, so that they can record the discussions had with the complainant and the accused regarding demand of illegal gratification, which was done by the complainant. On 14/06/11, a trap party was formed and at that time, a sum of Rs.15,000/ (currency notes denomination of Rs.1,000/ each) which was brought by the complainant taken into possession, they were treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned to the complainant with the instructions to handover the same to the accused, Rajesh Shrivastava when demanded. Trap was laid on the same day. The complainant, Rajendra Kumar gave a sum of Rs.15,000/ to the accused, Rajesh Shrivastava as illegal gratification, which the accused, Rajesh Shrivastava received and pass on to the co accused, Pradeep Chauhan (the present petitioner) who was with him. After receiving the amount, Pradeep Chauhan kept the money in his pocket. On the signal of the complainant, trap party came near the accused persons and currency notes were recovered from the pocket of Pradeep Chauhan and on treating of their hands with sodium carbonate solution it turned pink. On this basis, the other investigations were also carried out. FIR was registered against the accused and after completing the investigation, case was filed against both the accused. Before filling the challan, sanction was also obtained. The charges were framed against both the accused.