PRAHLAD KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is sought to be put on trial on accusation of his apprehension with tainted currency notes of Rs. 10,000/ - allegedly accepted by him as illegal gratification for obliging B.N.Ojha, proprietor of M/s OTV Media, Kailash Niketan, Patna, for final allotment of sponsorship of Inhouse Entertainment Programme of Patna Ooordarshan and waiving off additional spot buy fees for the month of August, 2001.

(2.) GRAVAMEN of the charges against the petitioner is that complainant had already sponsored inhouse programme for telecast at Doordarshan for some time, but even though he offered additional Spot Buy (ASB) per day, it was allotted to an agency from Mumbai by the petitioner, who had made lower offer than the complainant. Since the agency, which came from Mumbai had not responded even pursuant to offer, complainant approached the petitioner for sponsorship. Allegedly, the complainant requested the petitioner a number of times for withdrawing his ASB and using his Free Commercial Time (FCT) so that he could recover the loss to some extent. Petitioner, it was alleged, however, assured him to withdraw ASB for the month of August, 2001 and allotment of further sponsorship to him after month of December, 2001, and to oblige him, he asked the complainant to pay gratification of Rs. 50,000/ -. The deal was eventually negotiated between them, pursuant to which the complainant was required to pay Rs. 10, 000/ - as first instalment and pay rest thereafter.

(3.) THE prosecution was sought to be quashed on the excuses that Shri B.N. Ojha had inimical terms with the petitioner and had acted maliciously, having object to get inhouse sponsorship programme of Doordarshan Kendra. Grievance of coercing the petitioner, as usual, was also attributed to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during his arrest who was compelled to sign over the document. While commenting on the seizure memo, learned counsel would argue that it was in violation of the mandatory provision of law, as search of the C.B.I, personnel and the witnesses had not been carried out preceding search of the petitioner which was in violation of provisions of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Alleged search was also faulted on the premises that in the recovery memo no such averments were made about petitioner demanding Rs. 10,000/ - as illegal gratification from the complainant. About credibility of the witnesses, learned counsel would argue that they were tutored simply to support the case of the CBI. Prosecution case was sought to be faulted also on the ground that the currency notes were allegedly recovered by one Mr. Manoranjan Prasad, so called independent witness who was tutored to support the prosecution version and the other argument was that the petitioner was also suffering from serious eye ailment and had been under treatment of noted eye surgeon.