Allahabad High Court
Anuj Rajpoot vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Lko. on 17 May, 2024
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38007
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4560 of 2024
Applicant :- Anuj Rajpoot
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Shahla Zubair
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh the counsel for the CBI.
2. By means of the application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 15.02.2024 whereby the application filed by the applicant for discharge was rejected.
3. The counsel for the applicant in all fairness argues that in the present case, an information was received by the CBI on 20.03.2023 at about 11:00 am at Lucknow and based upon the said information received, a team was sent from Lucknow to Jalaun, which is around 300 kilometers away from Lucknow. The said member of the CBI Team allegedly confirmed the allegations at 06:50 pm in the evening and the information was given to the team at Lucknow and based upon the said, a team was constituted and a trap was laid and the actual recoveries allegedly were affected at about 7:20 pm. He argues that the recovery itself demonstrates the falsity of the FIR as it is not possible for the team to travel all the way from Lucknow to Jalaun and thereafter to take a decision, based upon which, the search is carried out within five minutes of the taking of the decision. He further argues that one of the allegation against the applicant, who was working as Manager of the Bank, was to the effect that the applicant had demanded and accepted the financial favours only to permit the complainant to withdraw from the CC Loan of Rs.10.00 lacs for which allegedly Rs.25,000/- was demanded. He argues that the said allegation contained in para 16.19 of the charge-sheet is prima-facie incorrect as the withdrawals of CC Limit granted to the complainant had already been done prior to 20.03.2023 i.e. on 17.07.2023 as can be evident from the statement of the account. He thus, argues that the basic ingredients for invoking section 7 to the effect that there should be a demand in relation to performance of public duty, being missing ought to have been considered by the trial court while rejecting the discharge application, which has not been done, as such, this court may set aside the said order and allow the application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the counsel for the CBI argues that based upon the information received, a team was constituted after the initial verification of the facts and the said team along with the other local members laid a trap and thereafter the applicant was apprehended with the cash of Rs.25,000/- and based upon the said, a charge-sheet came to be filed after investigation on 31.03.2023. He draws my attention to the articles of charges which starts from para 16.1 and up to 16.27 and are contained in the paper book from page 26 to 33. He further argues that at the stage of deciding the discharge application, the court is not obliged to read the evidence or the quality of the evidence to form any opinion with regard to deciding the discharge application. He argues that the Articles of charges levelled against the applicant and the evidence including the recovery of the money which was marked, from the possession of the applicant at the work place of the informant, was substantially stated in the charge-sheet, which is supported by the evidence as proposed to be relied upon by the CBI and considering the said material, as was placed before the Trial Court, the discharge application of the applicant would not have been allowed in any case. He argues that the quality of the evidence and its implication and linking with the charge has to be seen by the trial court at the time of trial and not at the stage of framing of the charge or while deciding the discharge application.
5. In support of their arguments as recorded above, the reliance have been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 wherein the Supreme Court had observed as under :
Para 21 - On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Section 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
6. The counsel for the applicant lays emphasis on para 21 (vi) of the said judgment while the counsel for the CBI lays emphasis on para 21(ii), 21(iv) and 21(v) of the said judgment.
7. Considering the law as explained and referred above, in the present case, substantial allegations were levelled in the charge-sheet which included the allegations with regard to demand and acceptance in relation to benefit of withdrawal of money credited to the account of the complainant under the CC facility. The said charges were proposed to be proved on the basis of the materials which included the recovery of money and the statement of witnesses and the original documents as attached to the charge-sheet. The material before the trial court could not have been seen from the lens of appreciating the evidence which is to be proposed by the applicant at the stage of deciding the discharge application and based upon the material placed before the trial court, prima-facie no error can be found in exercise of the power while rejecting the discharge application, as such, no good ground for interference is made out.
8. The application is dismissed.
9. However, any observations made herein above would not affect the trial in any manner which shall be conducted in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
VNP/-
