H. G. GROVER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 397 r/w Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 3/8/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), No.2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.194/2019 whereby an order framing charge has been passed against the petitioner under Ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the sole count that the learned Court below has not applied its mind to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offences are present or not in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submit that to inflict a charge upon an accused under Sec. 420 of IPC, prima facie there must, at the least, be an iota of evidence to prove the dishonest intention of the accused persons to induce the complainant party to believe certain things and the complainant-state should have acted under the influence of that inducement and thus, incurred huge loss. The inducement must be dishonest as envisaged under Sec. 415 of the IPC. The term 'forgery' and the act of 'making a false document' are defined under Ss. 463 & 464 of the IPC respectively but there is no whisper in the entire charge sheet which could show that any documents were prepared falsely or any forgery was committed. He, thus, submits that Ss. 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC can not be invoked in these cases because of the absence of the requisite ingredients. Since no forged documents were used as genuine ones, therefore, Sec. 471 IPC is also not applicable in these matters. For invocation of Ss. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, it is further submitted that the contract was issued by the Government to the concerned contractor to construct the road through BOT mode for constructing a 15 kilometers long road. The road was completed and the technical sanction was granted on 14/3/2001. The road was prepared within time and no defect was found in the construction of the road uptil the length of 11 kilometers, however, for the rest of the 4 kilometers, it was stated that the design was not perfect. He, thus, submits that if the design was not perfect then the entire condition of the 15 kilometers long road must have been dilapidated but that is not the case of prosecution. To book an accused for commission of an offence is a different thing but when the trial court proceeds to frame charge, then, it is imperative upon the trial Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the parties, the learned Judge has to form an opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for presuming that the accused had committed the offence alleged.

(3.) It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order available on record does not reflect that the trial court considered the above-mentioned aspects, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside because a public servant who acted in good faith should not be forced to face the rigour of trial on groundless accusations. The inspection of the road was made after 2 years of its completion and in the meantime, due to heavy rain fall and other climatic changes, the condition of the road for 2 to 3 kilometers may have deteriorated but for that no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the site inspection memo prepared by the investigating agency on 19/8/2004 on the questioned area wherein it is specifically mentioned by the Investigating Officer that there were trenches on both sides of the roads which were found filled with water throughout the year.