Subodh Kumar Jain Son Of Late Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1023 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000729]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10349/2022
 Subodh Kumar Jain Son Of Late Sh. Madan Lal Jain, Aged About
 62 Years, Resident Of House No. B-19, Opp. Jain Temple, Kirti
 Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv.

                                with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava and
                                Mr. Anuboth Jain
 For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Imran Khan, PP
                                Mr. Rajpal Godara, Addl. S.P., ACB
                                City-II, Jaipur.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
                   JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON   :                                 24/01/2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                    :               31/01/2023

1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No.

217/2016 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Police Station

District Jaipur for offences under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2)

and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under

Section 120-B of the IPC.

2. The challenge is on the ground that ingredients of none of

the offences for which FIR has been registered are made out and

the criminal prosecution is abuse of the process of law.

3. The prosecution case is that the informer of the Anti

Corruption Bureau reported to its Inspector Vikram Singh that

officers of SPML Infra company in collusion with officers of PHED

Department of the Government are acting in corrupt manner to

[2023/RJJP/000729] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

provide undue benefit to the company. Thereafter, mobile No.

9414043976 of Mr. Keshav Gupta, Vice President of SPML

Company and Mobile No. 9711308200 of Mr. Rishab Setty, the

Managing Director of the said Company were put on surveillance

and what was gathered from the talk between the two, on the

very next day i.e. 19.7.2016, Mr. Akashdeep Totla and Mr. Praful

Moreshwar Sontake, both the employees of the company

aforesaid, were put on vigil. The team of ACB noticed that

Akashdeep Totla had given a white packet to Mr. Praful Moreshwar

Sontake and Moreshwar took the same on the referred four

wheeler. The ACB team followed the vehicle and the vehicle

stopped near the house of the petitioner and a man came out of

the house. He was intercepted by the ACB Team, the man

disclosed his name as Praful Moreshwar Sontake and introduced

himself as an officer of SPML Company. On search, nothing was

recovered from the physical possession. However, Praful

Moreshwar Sontake disclosed that he had handed over the packet

to the petitioner inside his house. When the team went inside the

house, the packet was recovered within the shoe rack and the

packet was containing Rs. 5 lacs. Praful Moreshwar Sontake

admitted that he had given the money to the petitioner. On

search another packet of Rs. 5 lacs was recovered from the house

of the petitioner. Rs. 10 lacs was further found in the vehicle of

Praful Moreshwar and Praful Moreshwar stated that the money was

to be paid to Mr. R.K. Meena, the Chief Engineer of PHED

Department. The ACB Team suspected that just to provide undue

benefit to the company, the officers of PHED Department were

[2023/RJJP/000729] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

being bribed to cause wrongful loss to the public propoerty and

revenue. During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted as

Additional Chief Engineer in the Department of PHED.

4. Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, learned Senior counsel for the

petitioner contends that the investigation of the case is already

complete and uptil now there is no material to substantiate that

the petitioner had demanded or received any bribe money.

Moreover, nothing has been bought on record to show that any

matter of the company was pending with the petitioner to allege

that the recovered money was for the purpose of showing any

undue help by the petitioner to the company. Learned counsel

contends that the work assigned to the petitioner in PHED

Department was to monitor statistical data and progress report of

various projects ongoing in the State of Rajasthan. The decision

as regards issuing tender, award of contract, acceptance of tender

was being done by separate committees constituted for the

purpose. Learned counsel next contends that Annex.8 is a letter

of the Anti Corruption Bureau stating therein that the cash

recovered from the house of the petitioner were not

disproportionate to the known sources of income. Learned

counsel next contends that the statement made by a co-accused

to the Anti Corruption Bureau while in police custody cannot be

considered against the petitioner. Even in that statement, the co-

accused has not stated anything that any matter was pending with

the petitioner or petitioner was requested to ensure undue help to

the company by some other authorities. Learned counsel submits

that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the same FIR

[2023/RJJP/000729] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

against the co-accused Ram Karan Meena, the Chief Engineer in

the PHED Department in SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 707/2018

decided on 10.11.2022 and the same co-ordinate Bench has

quashed the FIR in respect of Mr. Keshav Gupta, vice president of

the company in SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 942/2020 decided on

10.11.2022. While quashing the FIR against Keshav Gupta, the

co-ordinate Bench noticed that the mobile conversation between

Keshav Gupta and Rishabh Shetty was only with respect to the

business of the company and nothing more.

5. Mr. Imran Khan, learned Public Prosecutor contends that on

completion of investigation, the allegation has been prima facie

found proved. The law is well settled that even strong suspension

would be sufficient to allow the criminal prosecution to go on when

the act/admission alleged have social ramification, the court

should not interfere at the threshold.

6. The co-ordinate Bench while quashing the same FIR against

other co-accused persons, a copy at Annex.11 noticed that there

was no evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by

those accused persons. The Investigation officer was specific that

in mobile conversation, there was nothing to say that secrecy of

the Government in the PHED Department was divulged. The

Investigation officer has stated that name of Mr. R.K. Meena came

in the mobile conversation and that Mr. R.K. Meena was in fact a

sub contractor of the company who was working in the Gagreen

and Bharatpur project and not the Chief Engineer Mr. R.K. Meena.

The Court further noticed that statement of the co-accused were

taken while they were in custody so their statements cannot be

[2023/RJJP/000729] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

read against the petitioner. It is worth to mention that the

aforesaid conversation was reason for putting trap by the ACB.

7. What the petitioner has stated on oath in the petition has not

been controverted by the State respondent based on material on

the record. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as

follows:

7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.-- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person 5 or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 1 [three years] but which may extend to 2 [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--(a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, be may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

(b) "Gratification." The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.

(c) "Legal remuneration." The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.

[2023/RJJP/000729] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

(d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.

(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section. "

8. Evidently, nothing is on record to substantiate that the

petitioner has accepted or agreed to accept for himself or for any

other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for doing or

forbearing to do any official act in exercise of his official function,

favour or disfavour to any person. No material is on the record

that any matter of the company was pending with the petitioner or

was pending with any other authority of the PHED Department

and the petitioner was persuaded to get the said favour from that

authority, therefore, ingredients of offence under Section 7 of the

Act are prima facie not made out.

9. Section 12 deals with punishment for abetment of offence

defined under Section 7 or 11 of the Act. Evidently, there is no

allegation of abetment against the petitioner, as such offence

under Section 12 of the Act is not attracted. Section 13(1)(d) is

also not made out as none had seen anyone giving money to the

petitioner and the money found were found explained during

investigation and the authorities have accepted that explanation

and written a letter at Ex.8 that the money was not undisclosed or

disproportionate to the known source of income. Section 13(2)

provides for punishment for the aforesaid offence. Section 14

[2023/RJJP/000729] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

relates to habitual commission of offence under the provisions of

the Act. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner was

habitual offender, even the Government did not initiate any

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation

made in the FIR. There is no allegation that the petitioner had

hatched any conspiracy with some other co-accused. Moreover,

since the ingredients of main offences have failed, the allegation

of criminal conspiracy to commit those offences automatically

failed.

10. Thus, it is crystal clear that the offence alleged remained

unsubstantiated during investigation rather there is complete lack

of evidence that the petitioner was found demanding or accepting

bribe for providing any undue help. No material was brought on

record to substantiate that any matter was pending with the

petitioner wherein the company was accepting undue help. Only

material available, is the statement of a co-accused while in police

custody wherein the co-accused simply stated that he had given

the packet of Rs. 5 lacs to the petitioner and had not stated the

purpose for which the money was given to the petitioner. In

absence of disclosure of purpose of payment of money, nothing

can be inferred or added in absence of any material on the record.

The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the

co-ordinate Bench in Ram Karan Meena case (supra), therefore, in

my view, the continuance of criminal proceedings would be an

abuse of process of law. Ingredients of none of the offences

mentioned in the FIR is made out.

[2023/RJJP/000729] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-10349/2022]

11. Therefore, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings

against the petitioner stands hereby quashed and this petition is

allowed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/34

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)