MUKESH KHATRI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three revisions have arisen out of common order dated 14.9.2017 passed in Special Case No. 01 of 2016 by Special Judge, CBI, Indore, whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, 1988) and in alternate under Section 8 PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the IPC for demanding illegal gratification for not impleading complainant Nanak Ram Dariyani in a case registered under the NDPS Act, 1985 at Kota (Rajasthan) against one Sudheer Gupta for illegal possession and transportation of 4.6 kg opium and 3 kg Alprazolam.

(2.) Sans unnecessary details, the facts leading to the present controversy are that on 18.9.2016 Inspector Dharam Singh Meena, Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN), Kota received credible information that one Sudheer Gupta is carrying opium and alprazolam worth Rupees Ten Lakhs in a Car bearing registration No. MP-09-CQ-0402 and going to deliver it in Kota and can be apprehended on Rawatbhata Road. Following the due procedure, a trap was laid by the team comprising Inspector trio of CBN, Kota Shri Dharam Singh Meena, Shri M. K. Jain and Shri Vivek Shrivastava. Sudheer Gupta was intercepted and on search 4.6 kg opium and 3 kg Alprazolam was recovered from his illegal possession. On interrogation, he informed that he had purchased 5.0 kg of Alprazolam from Vinod Rahinz of Indore. The officers of CBN, Kota raided the house of Vinod Rahinz, but could not find him at home. Therefore, they contacted their local counterpart Shri Mukesh Khatri, Superintendent, CBN, Ujjain (co-accused) and requested him to trace whereabouts of Vinod Rahinz. Mukesh Khatri enquired at his level and came to know that Vinod Rahinz has close business links with Nanak Ram Dariyani (complainant). He then pressurized Nanak Ram stating that Sudheer Gupta has named him, therefore, he may be arrested by the CBN, Kota but he can avoid his arrest as well as implication in the case registered against Sudheer Gupta in Kota by paying Rs. 5 lakhs to Dharam Singh Meena. Nanak Ram preferred a complaint against the CBN officials on 17.10.2016 before S.P., C.B.I., Bhopal. After following primary procedure, the police laid a trap, but the accused got a wind of police and the trap failed. The CBI then registered the present case.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that after failure of raid at the residence of Vinod Rahinz, the officers of CBN, Kota requested their counterpart Shri Mukesh Khatri, Superintendent, CBN, Ujjain (co-accused) to help them to arrest Vinod Rahinz and as he came to know that Vinod has close business links with Nanak Ram (complainant), he planned a covert operation and pressurized and at the same time allured Nanak Ram stating that Sudheer Gupta has named him, therefore, he may be arrested by the CBN, Kota, but if he co-operates to get Vinod Rahiz arrested, he may find a favour and may be exonerated from the case registered at CBN Kota. The sole purpose behind this plan was to ensure surrender and arrest of Vinod Rahinz. The CBN officers were only using Nanak Ram as a tool to arrest Vinod Rahinz. They make Nank Ram believed that in case he doesn't co-operate, he will suffer the consequences. Ostensibly Nanak Ram succumbed to the pressure and agreed to ensure surrender of Vinod Rahinz, but actually he made complaint. The sole purpose to spread such delusions was to ensure surrender of Vinod Rahinz and this is common practice of the department. The officers were terrifying Nank Ram with the sole purpose to use him as a means to get Vinod Rahinz arrested. Transcript of conversation recorded by the CBI categorically show that the sole object of the petitioners was to ensure surrender of prime accused in the case of Sudheer Gupta, Vinod Rahinz.