SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN FIR bearing No. 98 of 2011 of 18.4.2011, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code comprised in Annexure P -1, was lodged in Police Station, Sadar Una, District Una, against the petitioner. Sub Inspector Yashpal Gautam carried out the investigation into the offences constituted by the FIR aforesaid.

(2.) THE petitioner avers that during the course of the aforesaid investigation carried out by Sub Inspector Yashpal Gautam, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - was demanded by the latter as illegal gratification for obtaining a favourable opinion from RFSL, Dharmshala. A complaint comprising the aforesaid demand by SI Yashpal Gautam for illegal gratification was made by the petitioner before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hamirpur. The said complaint is comprised in Annexure P -2 annexed with the petition. A raiding party was formed to nab red handed SI Yashpal Gautam. However, a perusal of Annexure P -3, divulges that though the bribe amount was offered to Sub Inspector Yashpal Gautam yet it was refused to be accepted by him.

(3.) BEFORE parting, it is deemed fit and appropriate to clarify that the contentions as urged before this Court by the learned counsel for petitioner may be urged by the petitioner in defence during the course of his trial for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for which he has come to be charged. However, at this stage prima facie on a perusal of the material on record, it appears that the learned trial Judge in framing the charge has traversed through the entire material on record. Even otherwise, the contentions as raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner for ingraining the order framing charge with the vice of infirmity or its suffering from vitiation, cannot be come to be countenanced for the reasons as already submitted hereinabove.