Delhi High Court
Kiran Pal Chaudhary vs State on 2 August, 2005
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Crl.M.A. 5881/2004 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of.
2. Criminal Revision Petition 394/2004 and Crl.M.A.5880/2004 This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 22nd March, 2004, of the Special Judge, framing charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The case put up by the Prosecution appears to be as under:
"that on 13.01.1997 Shri Rakesh Dochana reported in AC Branch that he is working in LIC, Karol Bargh Branch No.124 as Assistant. He contacted one Shri Kiran Pal Chaudhary, Zonal Secy. SC/ST Budhist Welfare Association and requested him to get a job in the LIC for his two Brother-in-Laws about three months ago. Shri Kiran Pal Chaudhary demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for getting the jobs in LIC. Shri Rakesh Dochana showed his inability to pay the bribe at that time. Both his Brother-in-laws were selected in LIC. On this, Shri K.P.Chaudhary asked Shri Rakesh Dochana about the bribe money, which he had promised earlier. He threatened him that if the money was not paid, he will make a complaint against both his Brother-in-laws and get hem suspended from the service. Shri K.P.Chaudhary demanded the bribe money on telephone several times after that. On 13.01.1997 Shri Rakesh Dochana contacted Shri K.P.Chaudhary on telephone and asked him to arrange at least Rs.3,000/- as first installent and pay him on 13.01.1997 in his office. Shri Rakesh Dochana helplessly agreed to pay the bribe money.
On the above complaint, a trap was laid after observing all legal formalities in Jeewan Prakash Building, LIC Office, Delhi. Shri K.P.Chaudhary working as Higher Grade Assistant was apprehended red-handed while he demanded, accepted and obtained Rs.3,000/- from he complainant as illegal gratification for not making complaint against the complainant's Brother-in-Laws in the presence and hearing of Panch Witness, Shri Parveen Gupta, LDC, Pusa Road, Employment Exchange, Delhi. The case was registered and the accused was arrested in the case accordingly."
4. It is contended by Counsel for the Petitioner that the prosecution story, as put forth, is unbelievable since the Petitioner was not in a position to get the complainant employed with LIC. He submits that he has not received any money and had made no demand. He further goes on to submit that the Court should apply its judicial mind while framing charge and that the Magistrate has to see whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the matter. He submits that in the present case, the facts a stated by the prosecution are unbelievable and therefore, no charge can be framed.
5. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. From a reading of the material in the charge sheet it cannot be said that there is no material and/or the story put forth by the prosecution is ridiculous as to warrant a discharge. On the contrary, this is a trap case in which the police prima facie seems to have carried out a successful raid. The defense raised by the accused cannot be gone into at this stage. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the Orde under challenge.
6. Crl.Rev.P.394/2004 is accordingly dismissed. Crl.M.A.5880/2004 also stands dismissed.
