BIKAS CHANDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 3.5.2010 passed in Special Case No. 42/2007 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 64/2007 where by the learned Court refused to discharge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) THE documents on record reveal that a case was instituted on the basis of certain allegations made by the complainant Md. Saleh before the Officer -in -charge of Vigilance P.S. It has been stated that the complainant had booked the airconditioned lobby (auditorium) of the Planetarium, Patna for three days namely 26.5.2007, 27.5.2007 Kumar, was deputed by the petitioner as Incharge for this purpose. It is alleged that a demand of Rs. 50,000/ - was made at the instance of the petitioner for allowing booking for additional two days, but instead of granting receipt for the same on request being made, the petitioner had the airconditioner switched off. It has further been alleged that at the time of removal of the exhibition materials/articles a further demand of Rs. 25,000/ - was made. These allegations were verified and found correct in terms of the report dated 30.5.2007 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted and the co - accused Ramesh Kumar was caught red handed while accepting the bribe money of Rs.25,000/ - which amount was also recovered from him. The hands of Ramesh Kumar were dipped in chemical solution and the solution turned pink as also when his T -shirt was so tested. That the further facts on record are that a charge -sheet was filed on 24.7.2007 against Ramesh Kumar while investigation against others including the petitioner were kept pending. Thereafter, a supplementary charge -sheet came to be filed against the petitioner on the basis of which cognizance was also taken against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 120B IPC by order dated 1.5.2008 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance -I, Patna (Annexure -18). It was, however, noted that the requisite sanction for prosecution being obtained and was likely to be submitted soon, in view of which the cognizance taken was limited to Sections 409 and 120B IPC while cognizance for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was deferred until receipt of the sanction order.

(3.) ON the strength of such sanction order the learned Special Judge, Vigilance -I, Patna passed an order dated 26.5.2008 taking cognizance under Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner.