Telangana High Court
Bahbut Singh Raj Purohit vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4670 of 2024
ORDER:
The petitioner is questioning the implication in
C.C.No.1227 of 2021 on the file of XII Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad, as Accused No.1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 171-B r/w 171-E, 420 r/w 120(B)
IPC, Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1956 and 123(I) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.11.2018, the
Inspector of Police, City Task Force received information that
Hawala operators were planning to distribute crores of rupees to
various political parties for bribing the voters in the forthcoming
legislative assembly elections scheduled in the month of
December 2018 in the State of Telangana. During checks, they
intercepted the car of accused No.1 on 07.11.2018 at 03:00
hours. The accused No.1 tried to escape from the police, however
police chased and stopped the said car. In the said car two
persons were present, who are accused No.3 and accused No.4.
On searching the dicky of the car, police found Rs.2,00,07,500/-
cash. The said amount and also the cell phones of accused Nos.3
and 4 were seized under panchanama. Thereafter, accused No.3
was taken by the police to his residence and found accused No.2
in the premises. Having searched the house, an amount of
Rs.5,47,75,150/- along with cell phones, laptops, cash counting
machine, 30 cheque books of various banks, land documents,
blank non judicial stamp papers and blank signed cheques etc.,
were seized at the instance of accused No.2. From there, the
police personnel also conducted search in the premises of
accused No.1 residence at Goshamahal and seized an amount of
Rs.3,27,650/- and one .32 NP bore licensed revolver issued by
the Karnataka Government and its area validity restricted to
Gulbarga District.
3. During the course of investigation, the total amount of
Rs.7,51,10,300/- was deposited with the State Bank of India,
Criminal Courts Branch, Nampally, Hyderabad. Further, the
investigation was done by the CCS Police and all the bank
documents of this petitioner and other accused were also
collected during the course of investigation. According to the
investigation, the Police found that crores of rupees were
collected in the guise of shell companies and the same were
meant for providing to the political leaders, who in turn would
distribute the said monies to the voters in the elections to be
held in the month of December 2018. The said acts of the
accused in providing money to political leaders is nothing but
cheating various governmental organizations, for which reasons
charge sheet was filed.
4. Sri P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that none of the allegations made in the charge sheet
make out any of the offences alleged under Section 171-B r/w
171-E, 420 r/w 120(B) IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act,
1956 and 123(I) of The Representation of People Act, 1951.
5. He further submitted that, reading of the provisions
makes it abundantly clear that mere seizure of amounts from
this petitioner would not entitle the police to prosecute them for
the offences alleged. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others 1 and argued that where the
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
evidence collected in respect of the same do not disclose
commission of any offence or make out any of the offences, then
the same can be quashed. He also relied upon the judgment of
1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B.Adityan v.
S.Kandaswami 2 and S.Veeraraghavan v. Rajnikanth 3 and
argued that under similar circumstances, the Madras High
Court had quashed the proceedings against the petitioners
therein.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that all the facts have to be decided during trial and the
proceedings cannot be quashed.
7. In the present case, the police found huge amount of
cash i.e., Rs.7,51,10,300/- from the possession of this petitioner
and another on 06.11.2018. The alleged elections were scheduled
in the month of December 2018. For the sake of convenience,
Section 171-B & E of IPC are extracted hereunder:
" [171B. Bribery.--
(1) Whoever (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing
him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any
person for having exercised any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a
reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce
any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery:
Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action
shall not be an offence under this section.
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a
gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a
gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who
accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do,
or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have
accepted the gratification as a reward."
AIR 1958 Supreme Court 857
1997(2) MWN (Cr.) 290
[171E. Punishment for bribery.--Whoever commits the offence of bribery
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by
treating shall be punished with fine only. Explanation.--"Treating" means
that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink,
entertainment, or provision.]"
8. To attract an offence punishable under Section 171-E of
IPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of IPC have to be fulfilled. If
a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any
electoral right or for having exercised such right or accepts such
amount from any person as a reward for exercising any right or
inducing or attempts to induce any person in exercise of such
rights amounts to bribery. In the present case, the amounts were
allegedly found in the possession of the petitioner. The police
assume that the said amounts are meant for political leaders to
bribe the voters in the ensuing elections of December 2018.
Admittedly, no person was bribed or any money was accepted by
those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise.
For the said reasons, the offence under Section 171-B of IPC is
not made out and consequently the question of prosecuting this
petitioner for the offence of bribery punishable under Section
171-E of IPC does not arise.
9. The other offence is under Sections 420 r/w 120B IPC.
To attract an offence of cheating, the ingredients of Section 415
of IPC have to be fulfilled. Under Section 415 of IPC, there has to
be fraudulent misrepresentation and believing such
misrepresentation and persons have been induced and parted
with property. In such circumstances, offence of cheating
punishable under Section 420 of IPC would be made out. In the
present case, the political leaders for whom the amounts were
meant to be given are not identified nor the political parties.
Mere possession of cash would not attract an offence of cheating.
At the most, if the money is unaccounted, it may be an offence
under Income Tax Act. Further, if the said amounts are
identified as crime proceeds of any offence that was committed,
the person possessing such cash can be prosecuted for the said
offence.
10. In fact, the amount that was found was handed over to
the Income Tax authorities, who have released an amount of
Rs.2,00,07,500/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.5,47,75,150/-
towards tax liability of accused No.2. On an affidavit given by
accused No.3 that the said amount of Rs.2,00,07,500/- is that of
his father, the same was returned by the Income Tax
Department.
11. The amount that was seized from this petitioner was
adjusted towards tax liability of the accused No.2 and remaining
amount was released by the Income Tax Department after
conducting enquiry. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said
that mere seizure of the said amount would entail prosecution of
the petitioners. On the basis of the assumptions of the
investigating authorities that it was meant for funding the
political leaders to contest the elections in December 2018
elections, cannot in any manner sustain the prosecution against
these petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1227
of 2021 on the file of XII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 24.04.2024
Dsu
