2018 (9) TMI 2124 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal to give bona fide residence certificate - form was returned to the complainant with a report that bona fide residence certificate cannot be issued as family of the complainant was residing in Agra (U.P.) for last 30 years - no dowry demanded or with regard to pendency of work - HELD THAT - In the present case in hand, complainant himself when he moved to the Anti Corruption Department mentioned that petitioner had returned the form without making report. From the transcript which is available on record, it is evident that some prior transactions pertaining to bank file was pending between the parties and matter pertained to Rs. 4,850/- out of which as per the petitioner, Rs. 4,000/- was to be paid to the bank and in the transcript he has explained the total amount which was payable by the complainant. There is no specific demand for making a bona fide residence certificate, rather, petitioner had mentioned in the transcript that as the complainant and his son are residing in Agra (U.P.), a bona fide residence certificate cannot be issued. No trap proceedings were conducted in the case and the matter has remained pending with the Anti Corruption for a period of more than five years. There is no specific demand of money by petitioner and on the date of transcript no matter was pending before him. There being no ground for presuming that the accused has committed any offence, the order vide which charge has been framed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Revision petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Cognizance under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on demand of gratification for official act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Patwari, was charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on an alleged demand for a bona fide residence certificate. The petitioner contended that the complainant's family resided in Agra for 30 years, making him ineligible for the certificate. The petitioner had refused to issue the certificate earlier, and no evidence of a demand for Rs. 2,800 was found in the transcript. The charge sheet was filed after a significant delay, and no evidence supported the allegations of demanding dowry or pending work.

The petitioner relied on legal precedents like "N.S. Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan" and "Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra" to argue that no grave suspicion existed against him for framing charges. The judge's role was highlighted as not merely being a mouthpiece of the prosecution but to evaluate evidence to establish a prima facie case.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition, citing "Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi)" to emphasize the court's duty to assess if the alleged offense's ingredients were present during the charge framing stage. The prosecutor argued that the transcript indicated a demand for a bribe from the complainant.

The court examined Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which criminalizes accepting gratification for official acts. It found that no specific demand for a residence certificate was made by the petitioner. The transcript revealed a prior transaction regarding bank files, with no direct demand for money. The absence of a trap operation, the delay in proceedings, and lack of pending matters on the petitioner's desk further weakened the case. Consequently, the court concluded that the offense under Section 7 was not established, leading to the quashing of the charge against the petitioner.