NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Session Court (Constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act), Kota, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 12(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC, the Petitioner has approached before this Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, Mohd. Shakeel, the complainant, has leveled most of the allegations against Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain and has hardly stated anything against the present Petitioner. Secondly, although trap proceedings were carried out on 23.02.2007, yet the statement of the complainant was not recorded till nine months latter. Thirdly, it is only nine months latter that for the first time the complainant claims that on an earlier occasion he was taken to the house of the Petitioner by Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain, and the Petitioner asked him for an illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- in order to ensure that VCR is not filled up for the alleged theft of electricity committed by the complainant. Therefore, after a lapse of nine months, suddenly a new story was developed by the complainant. Forthly, the story with regard to the theft of electricity is clearly untenable, as according to the complainant's brother, Mohd. Sarif, the tubewell was being run, not through theft of electricity, but through a generator. Therefore, there was no question of VCR being filled up for theft of electricity. Fifthly, according to the statement of Chandra Mohan Chauhan, the Assistant Engineer, the application for electricity connection was pending and would take many years to be finalized. Therefore, at the relevant time, no work was pending with the Petitioner. Lastly, relying on the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr., 1979 AIR(SC) 366, the learned Counsel has contended that this case does not fall within the ambit of Section 227 and 228 of Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the learned Judge has committed illegality in not discharging the Petitioner from the aforementioned offence.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that at the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court cannot enter into a microscopic examination of the evidence. In the statement of the complainant, it was clearly stated that initially the persons from electricity company had come and had discovered that there was an alleged theft of electricity being committed by the complainant; in order to ensure that no case is made out, Sageer Ahmed, Jilani Ahmed and Satyanarain Sain had taken the complainant to the house of the Petitioner. According to him, initially a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made, but the same was settled for Rs. 4,000/-. Thus, prima faice, allegation was made against the Petitioner. Secondly, according to Section 7 of the P.C., Act, even if no work was pending, even then the persons can be held liable under the P.C., Act. Thus, even if, according to Chandra Mohan Chauhan, the case of the complainant will be taken up after many years, still the Petitioner is liable to be charged under the Act.