ATUL KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred laying a challenge to order dtd. 22/10/2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Act, No. 2, Jaipur in Criminal Regular Case No. 51/2015 (81/2011), titled as State of Rajasthan v. Atul Kumar Garg, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner.

(2.) Challenging the order dtd. 22/10/2016, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate, Mr. A.K. Gupta assisted by Mr. Aniket Sharma that if the contents of the FIR are taken on its face value, then no offence under Ss. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the accused-petitioner. It is submitted that there is no evidence at all to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner while discharging officials duties did not act beyond jurisdiction and the order dtd. 9/3/2010, extension of one year in favour of NLP Organic Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'company') to clear the settled amount was granted as per the powers available to him under the Circulars of the Department. In support of this arguments, he placed reliance on a Circular dtd. 22/4/2009, issued by Rajasthan Financial Corporation under the subject "Scheme for One Time Settlement". Reliance was placed on judgments Sarabjeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR 2009 SC, 2792, Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj 1990, Cri.L.J. 1869, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991 and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr., AIR 1979 SC 366.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposing the petition argued that the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Act, No. 2, Jaipur recorded sufficient reasons while framing charges against the petitioner. From the perusal of the charges, it is clear that pursuant to the decision taken in the State Level Committee dtd. 9/3/2010, no amount of settlement was deposited by the company. Yet, on an application of the company, the petitioner without recording any reason, acting beyond jurisdiction allowed one year time to the company for clearing the settled amount. He apprised the Court that the order dtd. 9/3/2010, was passed by the petitioner while he was under transfer. He placed reliance on judgment of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Chaudhary and Ors. reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 338.