SUDHIR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by Designated Court, Ajmer (Anti Corruption Cases) whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence u/Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE short facts stated in the petition are that the petitioner was working as Divisional Forest Officer at Ajmer having charge of various Forest Offices under him including of Sarwad Forest Range Office. Contractor Gordhan Singh was given a contract for the construction of office - cum -residence building of Sarwad Forest Range for a sum of Rs. 9.62 lacs in the year 2012 and a bill was submitted by him to Ranger Puroshattam Purohit. The ranger Puroshattam Purohit deducted a sum of Rs. 28,000/ - from his bill as work of some items mentioned in the bill were not complete till the submission of the bill. Contractor Gordhan Singh was having some other work in Ajmer area and as his work was not found satisfactory, the present petitioner has blacklisted him and to Puroshattam Purohit also several warnings have been issued. In the light of the above contractor Gordhan Singh and ranger Puroshattam Purohit hatched a criminal conspiracy with a view to spoil the career of the petitioner and filed a complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ajmer mentioning therein that the petitioner demanded Rs. 40,000/ - from him in presence of ranger Puroshattam Purohit and out of which Rs. 20,000/ - had been paid to the petitioner on the same day and rest Rs. 20,000/ - alleged to be given to the petitioner by Puroshattam Purohit and recovered from the house of the petitioner under the Sofa. After investigation, charge -sheet has been filed in the matter and the court below has framed the charges against the petitioner, hence this revision petition. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no evidence that the present petitioner has demanded Rs. 40,000/ - or he has accepted the bribe money of Rs. 20,000/ -. Gordhan Singh had made in vain efforts to trap the petitioner for giving Rs. 20,000/ - on 3.4.2012, 8.4.2012, 9.4.2012, 16.4.2012 and 19.4.2012 and could not succeed. Thereafter, money has been handed over to Puroshattam Purohit who has kept the planted money under the Sofa in the house of the petitioner. The court below passed the impugned order against the material available on record, arbitrarily. There is no evidence to show demand or acceptance of the money. It is unbelievable that the petitioner will demand and accept the money from the person who has been blacklisted by him. Puroshattam Purohit has planted the money in his house. From the hand -wash, no colour was seen. Puroshattam Purohit is also an accused in the matter. Transcript also shows that the petitioner has not demanded any money and he was insisting to complete the work. Call details also suggests that petitioner never went to Sarwad and no money has been paid to him, hence he be discharged from the charges framed against him.

(3.) HEARD the parties present in person and perused the case diary presented by the State.