2017 (10) TMI 143 - HC - Indian Laws

Offences under sections 7 and 8 r/w Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC - Held that - On perusal of the record and hearing the parties at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., if the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the charge sheet. The court below has dealt in detail each and every fabric of charge sheet material to come to the conclusion that there are grounds to frame the charge against the accused No.1 for the offences under Section 120-B of IPC and sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and against accused No.2 for the offences under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 8 of the P.C. Act r/w Section 120 of IPC. The offence under section 120-B of IPC i.e. conspiracy cannot be expected to be proved by direct evidence. Generally, as a matter of prudence, it can only be construed on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and in connection with the allegation attributed against each of the accused. The order of the court below is well reasoned, not warranting revisional jurisdiction of this court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the rejection of the discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of demand for illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC.
3. Validity of the assessment order and its timing.
4. Applicability of Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a non-public servant.
5. Evaluation of evidence and materials presented by the prosecution.
6. Procedural correctness in framing charges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the rejection of the discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.:
The revision petitioner (A-2) challenged the Special Court's order rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that there was no pending work that could justify the demand for illegal gratification. The court noted that the assessment order, allegedly passed on 6.9.2012, was not recorded officially, indicating potential manipulation. The court emphasized that Section 7 of the Act does not require pending work for an offense to be made out; it suffices if there is acceptance or agreement to accept gratification for any official act.

2. Allegations of demand for illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC:
The complainant alleged that the first accused demanded a bribe to reduce the tax liability. The petitioner argued that the assessment order had already been passed, and there was no material evidence of demand. However, the court found that the materials on record, including voice recordings and witness statements, indicated that the petitioner acted on behalf of the first accused to demand and accept the bribe.

3. Validity of the assessment order and its timing:
The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed on 6.9.2012, making the bribe demand on 7.9.2012 false. The court observed that the Investigating Officer found no official record of the order being passed on 6.9.2012. This discrepancy supported the prosecution's case that the order's timing was manipulated to facilitate the bribe demand.

4. Applicability of Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a non-public servant:
The petitioner argued that he was not a public servant and thus not subject to Sections 7 or 8 of the Act. The court clarified that Section 8 applies to private persons who accept or agree to accept gratification for influencing public servants. The court found sufficient material indicating that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribes on behalf of the first accused, a public servant.

5. Evaluation of evidence and materials presented by the prosecution:
The court evaluated the evidence, including the trap money, voice recordings, and witness statements. The petitioner's argument that he pushed back the trap money was not found in his initial explanation. The presence of phenolphthalein on the petitioner's fingers suggested he handled the tainted money. The court concluded that these materials created a strong suspicion of the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offenses.

6. Procedural correctness in framing charges:
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, detailed reasons are not required. The Special Judge found sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioner for offenses under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 8 of the P.C. Act. The court noted that conspiracy is often proved through circumstantial evidence, and the materials presented justified the charges.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Special Court's order to frame charges against the petitioner. The detailed analysis of the prosecution's materials and the legal provisions supported the decision to proceed with the trial.