Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
SPECIAL JUDGE: (PC ACT): (ACB01):
RADC: NEW DELHI.
CC No. 17/2022
State vs. Satya Pal Singh @ S. P. Singh
FIR No. 21/2014
PS : ACB
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.2014, complainant
Naresh Kumar gave a complaint at ACB office stating that he is doing the
work of building maintenance since 18 years. At present he is working as
a contractor and he has done work of Rs.1,75,000/ on contract at
different places of Engineer Office of Delhi University. Accused T. C.
Jain (A.E.) and S. P. Singh (E.E.) had demanded 5%5% bribe from him
for passing the said bill. He is against the corruption. He has brought
Rs.17,000/ with him and appropriate action be taken on his complaint.
Pursuant to the said complaint, a raid was conducted and both accused
persons Trilok Chand Jain and S. P. Singh @ Satya Pal Singh were
caught red handed while taking the bribe amount of Rs.8500/ each and
from their possession bribe amount of Rs.8500/ each were recovered by
the panch witness. Both the accused persons were apprehended. Accused
Trilok Chand Jain expired on 05.09.2019.
2. Thereafter, sanction to prosecute u/s 19 of Prevention of
Corruption Act was obtained against accused Satya Pal Singh @ S. P.
Singh from competent authority on 03.03.2022. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Satya Pal Singh @
S. P. Singh on 16.03.2022. On 01.04.2022, cognizance for offences u/s
-- 1 of 7 --
2
7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act was taken against accused Satya Pal
Singh @ S. P. Singh and he was summoned in the present case.
3. I have heard Sh. Vikash Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as
also Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Ld. Defence counsel for accused and also gone
through the material placed on record.
4. Ld. Defence counsel argued that complaint is totally vague and
it is not clarified by the complainant when the demand of money was
raised. Ld. Defence counsel vehemently contended that there is no bill on
record for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/ for which, allegedly demand of 5% 5
% bribe was made by accused persons. It has been submitted that accused
was not authorized to pass the bill and same does not bears his signature.
Ld. Defence Counsel for accused further argued that accused had an
authority to pass the bill upto Rs.75000/ only and as such demand of 5%
for clearing the bill amounting to Rs.1,75,000/ does not arise. Ld.
Defence counsel further argued that IO has not explained any reason why
she applied for CDR of complainant and accused persons after about 56
years from the incident. Thus, it was submitted that accused is liable to be
discharged.
5. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused has been
specifically named by the complainant and he was caught red handed
while accepting bribe of Rs.8500/ from the complainant in presence of
panch witness. It has been submitted that there is a specific demand of
bribe and acceptance by the accused. Ld. Addl. PP for State further
argued that complainant has stated that he had done the work on different
sites of the Engineer Office of Delhi University for which he raised the
-- 2 of 7 --
3
bill and the total bill amount of all the four bills raised by complainant
and placed alongwith chargesheet are about Rs.1,75,000/. Ld. Addl. PP
for State further argued that there is sufficient material on record to frame
the charge against the accused.
6. In Settu vs. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL. REV.P. 13/2022
dated 10.03.2022, Hon’ble High Court has observed that :
“It is well settled law that at the stage of framing
of charge, the court has power to shift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a primafacie case against
accused has been made out. When the material
placed before the court discloses great suspicion
against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be justified in framing
charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons
of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as
if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of
materials on record a court could come to the
conclusion that commission of the offence is a
probable consequence, a case of framing of
charge exists.
9. To put it differently, if the courts were to think
that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame a charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
accused has committed the offence. At the stage of
-- 3 of 7 --
4
framing of a charge, probative value of the
materials on records cannot be gone into, the
material brought on record by the prosecution
has to be accepted as true at that stage. The truth,
veracity and effect of the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be
attached to the probable defence of the accused.
It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of
the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a
sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not.
10. The standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a finding
regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is
not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding
the matter under Section 227 or under Section
228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there is
a strong suspicion which leads the court to think
that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it is not
open to the court to say that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. While
deciding the question of framing of charge in a
criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the
-- 4 of 7 --
5
standard and test which it finally applies for
determining the guilt or otherwise.
11. What is required to be seen is whether there
is strong suspicion which may lead to the court
to think that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence. The
above proposition is supported with law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble
High Court reported as “Union of India vs
Prafulla Kumar”, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366,
“State of Maharashtra and others vs Som Nath
Thapa and other” JT 1996 (4) SC 615, “State of
Bihar vs Ramesh Singh”, AIR 1997 SC 2018:
(1997 CRI LJ 1606), “Umar Amdula Sakoor
Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic
Control Bureau” JT 1999 (5) SC 394, “Kalu
Mal Gupta vs. State” 2000 I AD Delhi 107.”
7. It is a settled legal position that prosecution is required to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, at the stage of framing
of charge, the Court has only to see whether prima facie case is made out
against the accused. In this regard, it is held in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander, 2012 (9) SCC, 460 as under:
“19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge,
the court is concerned not with proof but with a
-- 5 of 7 --
6
strong suspicion that the accused has committed
an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove
him guilty. All that the court has to see is that
the material on record and the facts would be
compatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at
that stage.”
8. Thus, at the stage of charge, the court is not to see the
probative value of the evidence nor the sufficiency of material is to be
gone into. Whether the trial would eventually result into conviction of the
accused or not is also not material.
9. Complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that
accused Satya Pal Singh @ S. P. Singh and Sh. T. C. Jain (since expired)
were demanding bribe of 5 % 5 % for clearance of his bill for work done
at different sites of Engineer Office of Delhi University. IO has placed on
record the four bills raised by complainant alongwith chargesheet and the
total amount of these four bills i.e. bill no. 31 amounting to Rs.16,207/,
bill no. 32 amounting to Rs. 80,401/, bill no. 33 amounting to
Rs.30,618/ and bill no. 36 amounting to Rs.48,740/ comes to
Rs.1,75,966/. As per report of Truth Lab, the signatures of accused
persons on the work orders, completion certificate, text statements etc. are
found matching with their specimen signatures. Whether accused Satya
Pal Singh @ S. P. Singh was authorized to pass the bill upto Rs.75000/
only is a matter of trial. As per prosecution case, accused Satya Pal Singh
@ S. P. Singh was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.8,500/.
-- 6 of 7 --
7
The competent authority has granted sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against
accused Satya Pal Singh @ S. P. Singh.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie a case for the
offences under section 7 & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
punishable under Section 13 (2) of PC Act is made out against accused
Satya Pal Singh @ S. P. Singh. Accordingly, charge for the aforesaid
sections be framed against him.
Announced in the open court
on 05.08.2022
(Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
Special Judge, PC Act (ACB01)
RADC, New Delhi.
-- 7 of 7 --