Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Nath Thakur Alias Dr. R.N. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 5 April, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19983
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1402 of 2024
Revisionist :- Ravindra Nath Thakur Alias Dr. R.N. Thakur
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Purnendu Chakravarty
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
2. By means of present revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, has been filed assailing the order dated 15.10.2024, passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 8, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 0202 of 2018, under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 506 IPC, Police Station - Swaroop Nagar, District - Kanpur, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by the complainant namely Prashant Rao stating that he is studying at GSVM Medical College, Kanpur in the academic session 2017-18 and had obtained admission in the course of Diploma in Pharmacy in Ist year alongwith 60 other students. It was alleged that after six months of the said course, the Head of the Department Prof. Dr. R.N. Thakur (accused) demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- per student for passing them in the said course and in case said amount is not given, all the students will be failed. The complainant alongwith other students met Prof. Dr. Navneet Kumar, but he refused to meet the students and subsequently, the students started collecting evidence against the accused. It is further stated that on 19.09.2018, amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was offered by the complainant to the accused, which was accepted by him and he had recorded the said incident through CCTV Camera which was fitted in his T-Shirt. Subsequently, after 3-4 days, the complainant further offered a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the accused at his residence and the same incident, according to the complainant was also recorded in the CCTV Camera.
4. The aforesaid evidence collected by the complainant was informed to all the high officials of the State and on coming to know of the said facts, the accused is also said to have threatened the students including the complainant. When the said fact was brought to the knowledge of high officials, an inquiry was constituted and Prof. Dr. R.N. Thakur (accused) was placed under suspension and in the aforesaid facts, first information report was lodged.
5. The matter was inquired by the Police and charge sheet was submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, on which cognizance was taken and summons were issued. The revisionist had put in appearance before the Trial Court and moved an application for discharge. In the application for discharge it was stated on behalf of revisionist that the CCTV Footage which was submitted by the complainant was not verified as per provisions of Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act and merely on the basis of the affidavits of the students, charge sheet has been filed and accordingly there is no cogent evidence available on record pointing towards culpability of the accused and consequently, proceedings of the said case would amount to harassment of accused and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings deserve to be quashed as same are totally malafide.
6. It was further submitted that the complainant himself was infact student at Kirorimal College, Delhi University for the same academic year in which he had obtained admission in the course of Pharmacy and consequently, he cannot take admission in two courses simultaneously and for this reason, infact complainant's admission the course of Pharmacy at GSVM Medical College, Kanpur deserves to the set aside and the complaint has been lodged by the complainant malafidely to prevent any adverse action being taken against him by the University.
7. The trial Court by means of order dated 15.11.2024 has considered the arguments of the revisionist in great detail. It was also considered that before the Police, 43 students had submitted their affidavits supporting the case of the prosecution which were duly considered during investigation. It was also considered that in the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory it was stated that images were not clear and that the video clip show software used editing.
8. The devise on which the said video clip was recorded was not placed before the Police authorities or sent for examination, but was stated that said devise would be submitted in the Court during trial. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submission, it is noticed that several observations have been made by the FSL with regard to the CCTV Footage, but vital piece of evidence which is in the form of device on which the said image/video footage was captured and as per statement of complainant, same will be submitted before the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, at the stage of discharge, merely on the ground of submission of findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it cannot be said that there is lack of evidence pointing towards total lack of evidence, indicating the culpability of the accused linking him to the said incident. It is not the case of the revisionist that the CCTV Footage was the only material on the basis of which trial is sought to be proceeded. Perusal of FIR as well as material adduced during investigation, it is noticed that the statement of complainant himself was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where he has supported the case of prosecution. In his statement he has reproduced the chain of evidence as stated in the FIR, stated herein above and the CCTV Footage if any, would be of corroborative nature.
10. The question which has to be considered at this stage at this stage is that even if CCTV Footage is disbelieved, whether any proceedings can be continued against revisionist in the light of the evidence or material already available on record.
11. In this regard, it is noticed that case of the revisionist was that apart from the complainant no other student was examined, but 43 affidavits were taken on record. Accordingly, this Court finds that at least statement of the complainant was duly recorded and during trial statements would be duly considered and on the basis of the said evidence the trial Court would be at liberty to consider the culpability of the accused or otherwise.
12. Accordingly, this Court finds that the CCTV Footage is not the only source of material or evidence forthcoming as evidence against the accused in the present case and merely at this stage without expressing any opinion, even if, the CCTV Footage is excluded from being considered as piece of evidence in the light of provisions of Section 65(b), then also we find that the trial would still proceed with other available evidence. It cannot be ruled out that other students may also be produced during examination by the prosecution to support their case. In any view of the matter perusal of complaint indicates the facts narrated in the FIR, which inturn indicate cognizable offence.
13. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not impressed with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and accordingly his arguments in this regard are rejected.
14. The second ground raised by the revisionist was with regard to the invocation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the present case. It was submitted that Section 13(1)(d) was excluded from Prevention of Corruption Act by an amendment with effect from 26.07.2018. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 01.11.2018, which date is subsequent to the date of said amendment, if the provision is deleted and accordingly it was the case of the revisionist that charge sheet could not have been submitted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
15. Undoubtedly, what has to be looked into by this Court is the fact as to whether on the date of occurrence of the offence, statutory provision was available on the statute or otherwise. In the present case, we find that admission has been taken by the complainant for the academic session 2017-18 and it has been stated that after six months of his admission, demand for illegal gratification has been made, no particular date has been stated by the complainant in his complaint and accordingly, it cannot be conclusively observed at such preliminary stage of discharge that no part of the said offence took place prior to 26.07.2018.
16. According to the revisionist, occurrence of the offence has been stated to be from 19.09.2018. Merely because date of occurrence in the printed form of FIR is recorded as 19.09.2018, which certainly cannot be conclusive proof of the date of occurrence in the present case, which, initiated on the illegal demand being made from the students and was committed when the money was accepted by the accused.
17. Even the trial Court had dealt with the said issue and did not find any substance in the arguments made on behalf of revisionist. With regard to jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the criminal revision against an application for discharge, it was submitted that this Court has sufficient powers to interfere in the appropriate cases to prevent misuse of the process of law by means of false criminal prosecution and to prosecute innocent persons. In this regard attention of this Court was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2021 SC 2351; (2022) 15 SCC 720, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under :-
"15. Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] ]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be."
18. The complaint clearly indicates that demand was made within six months of the admission and no specific date has been stated and accordingly at this stage it cannot be conclusively proved that illegal demand was not made prior to 26.07.2018. Moreover this aspect of the matter is liable to be looked into during the course of trial. No other ground has been urged by learned counsel for the revisionist.
19. In view of above, this Court does not find any ground for interfering in the impugned order as no error is apparent on the face of record.
20. Accordingly, revision being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.4.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
