GOPI RAM MANGAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated August 8, 1984, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by which the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 161 I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) A First Information Report was registered with the Anti Corruption Department against Gopi Ram Mangal, who was posted as Cotton Purchase Officer at Rawatsar, on the allegation that he accepted the bribe of Rs. 1000/ - from Hanuman Prasad. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, was that on January 20, 1983, three heaps of cotton were brought by Hanuman Prasad for self and out of the three, Gopi Ram, who was working as Cotton Purchase Officer at Rawatsar, purchased two heaps of cotton, whereas the third heap, weighing about 400 Quintals of cotton, was not purchased by the Cotton Corporation of India as it is alleged that the accused -petitioner demanded Rs. 10/ - per quintal for the purchase of the same, which Hanuman Prasad did not want to pay and he, therefore, contacted the Anticorruption Department and a trap was arranged and in pursuance of that trap, the petitioner was caught red -handed on January 25, 1983 for accepting the bribe of Rs. 1000/ -. After registration of the First Information Report, the case was investigated by the C.B.I. and the C.B.I., after completing the investigation, submitted the Final Report. That Final Report was not accepted by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. cases, Jodhpur, by his order dated December 7, 1983, and the learned Special Judge sent the papers for further investigation to the C.B.I. and after receipt of the papers, the C.B.I. further investigated the matter, took the sanction against the accused prosecute him and thereafter submitted the charge -sheet against the accused. The learned Special Judge, thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused, as well as to the learned Public Prosecutor, by his order dated August 8, 1984, framed the charges against the accused under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is against this order of framing the charge that the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the, charges as well as for quashing the proceedings on the ground of delay.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no evidence on record, on the basis of which the charges could be framed against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the ingredients of the offence, for which the petitioner has been charged, are not made -out in the present case and, therefore, the learned Special Judge committed an error in framing the charges against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the proceedings pending before the Court below deserves to be quashed on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, the incident took -place on January 25, 1983, and the challan was filed by the investigating agency in the Court on April 27, 1984 and the charges were framed on August 8, 1984 and uptill the date, only one witness has been examined and initially the case was tried by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jaipur and now it has been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I. cases, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. It was further submitted that the main witness Hanuman Prasad, who was the only eye witness in the case, has breathed his last and the other two trap witnesses Chet Ram and Sukhdeo Singh, as per their statements, did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, the trial of the petitioner will be a futile exercise and, therefore, the trial, pending in the Court below, may be quashed. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over; Sita Ram v. The State of Rajasthan : 1975CriLJ1224 , Suraj Mal v. The State of Delhi Administration : 1979CriLJ1087 , K.K. Tewari v. The State through C.B.I. 1989 R.C.C. 117 and Badan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1989 Cr.P.C. (Raj.) 750. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against the petitioner and has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which a prima facie case to frame charges against the petitioner has been made -out and at this stage the meticulous examination of the evidence is not necessary. It has further been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that how much weightage is to be given to the statements of the witnesses and the fact of the death of the ocular witness Hanuman Prasad can be looked -into by the trial Court after conclusion of the trial and this is not the stage, at which the charges or the proceed should be quashed.