Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2259 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2259 Jhar
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2023

Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 5 July, 2023
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Revision No. 348 of 2023
         Deepak Kumar                      .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                        Versus
         The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau
                                            .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

         For the Petitioner(s) :     Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                     Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
                                     M/s Sugandha Jaiswal Poddar, Advocate
         For the Opp. Party(s) :     Mrs. Priya Shrestha, SPP
                        ......

03/ 05.07.2023. The instant Cr. Revision has been filed against the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with A.C.B. (Ranchi) P.S. Case No.04 of 2022 (Vigilance Case No.7 of 2022) whereby petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and charge under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988 has been framed.

2. It is submitted that petitioner was posted and working as GPF Clerk and a complaint has been received against him that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.6,000/- for clearing the retiral dues of the complainant.

3. After receipt of the complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted and after verification, the allegation was found to be true and a pre-trap team was constituted and trap was laid in which the petitioner was apprehended red-handed with Rs.5,000/-.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act.

5. The petitioner preferred a discharge petition before the learned Court below which has been rejected and aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has preferred the instant Revision petition.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main plea for discharge is on the ground that after forwarding the application for release of GPF amount, there was no pending application of the complainant with the petitioner. Further for releasing the other retiral benefits, the petitioner has no role to play. In view of the fact that there was no matter pending with the petitioner, the very allegation of making a demand for illegal gratification was without any foundational basis. In this regard, reliance has been placed in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1724 wherein it has been held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to make out the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.

7. It is further submitted that distinction has been drawn by the High Court of Karnatka at Bengaluru in the case of Sri. P. Manjunath vs. The State by Karnatka Lokayuktha Police & Anr. passed in Writ Petition No.10027 of 2022 (GM- RES) wherein the entire case was quashed as it related to a demand after the work had already been completed by the petitioner/accused. The Court gives due distinction between pre-trap demand and post trap demand. Further reliance has been placed in the judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC 1538 at Para-7 whereby on similar facts, the accused was acquitted of the charges.

8. Learned SPP for the ACB has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that after completing the necessary preliminary enquiry and formalities, the trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red-handed with the bribe amount. The case fulfils the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act i.e. demand acceptance and recovery.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire materials on record, I do find force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the ACB. There are sufficient materials to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The plea that the petitioner was dealing with the GPF file only, and on the said date of the alleged demand, it was not pending with the petitioner is a defence plea that cannot be considered at this stage and the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise it during trial.

As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the prayer made in the instant petition.

Accordingly, the instant Cr. Revision is dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter