Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by:- Jay Thareja, DHJS
CC No.42/2024
State v Harish Kumar
FIR No.39/2014
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
29.06.2024
Present : None.
1. The charge-sheet filed by the State (through the IO, Inspector
Anand Prakash) has been perused.
2. In the charge-sheet, it has been inter-alia alleged by the State that
the accused, Sh. Harish Kumar (the then JE, MCD, Delhi) is liable to be
prosecuted and convicted qua the offence punishable under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'PC Act, 1988') (a) because in his
complaint dated 15.01.2014, the complainant, Sh. Krishan Kumar Rathi has
expressly stated that on 13.01.2014, the accused, Sh. Harish Kumar had
demanded Rs.2.4 lacs from him for clearing the pending bills of M/s. Satya
Construction, a firm of Sh. Yogesh Bhardwaj, with whom the complainant had
entered into an agreement dated 12.09.2013; (b) because the said version of the
complainant is corroborated by the contents of the video file, “M0000.AVI” given
by the complainant in the CD, seized vide seizure memo dated 15.01.2014; (c)
because the said version of the complainant is also corroborated by the contents
of the video file, “MPEG0005.AVI” given by the complainant in a memory card,
seized vide another seizure memo dated 15.01.2014; (d) because vide report
dated 28.04.2014, the FSL, Rohini, Delhi has opined/found that both the said
videos are unaltered; (e) because vide report dated 30.11.2016, the FSL, Rohini,
Delhi has opined/found that both the said videos contain a voice similar to the
voice of the accused, Sh. Harish Kumar; (f) because vide report dated
21.07.2022, the FSL, Rohini, Delhi has opined/found that both the said videos
contain the voice of the complainant, Sh. Krishan Kumar Rathi and (g) because
the competent authority viz. Sh. Gyanesh Bharti (IAS), Commissioner MCD has
-- 1 of 2 --
granted sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 to prosecute the accused,
Sh. Harish Kumar.
3. In order to verify the aforesaid allegations of the State, I have inter-
alia perused/seen (a) the complaint dated 15.01.2014 made by the complainant,
Sh. Krishan Kumar Rathi, (b) the transcripts of the aforesaid two videos as well as
the aforesaid two videos, as available in the two CDs found in the envelope filed
at page no.13 of the charge-sheet, (c) the aforesaid reports of FSL, Rohini, Delhi,
(d) the statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of the relevant witnesses
and (e) the sanction order dated 08.08.2023, passed by Sh. Gyanesh Bharti
(IAS), Commissioner MCD.
4. Upon perusal of the above-noted material, I am satisfied that this
case is ripe for proceeding against the accused, Sh. Harish Kumar under Section
7 of the PC Act, 1988.
5. Accordingly, in exercise of the power available under Section 190(b)
of CrPC, 1973, the cognizance of the above-noted offence is taken and it is
directed that summons shall be issued against the accused, Sh. Harish Kumar
(who has been charge-sheeted without arrest by the State), returnable on
12.08.2024.
6. While perusing the charge-sheet filed by the State (through the IO,
Inspector Anand Prakash), I have not been able to find any statement under
Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav, inter-alia expressly
supporting the version of the complainant that on 13.01.2014, in front of Sh.
Krishan Kumar Yadav, the accused, Sh. Harish Kumar had demanded Rs.2.4 lacs
from the complainant and confirming that the transcript(s) of the video file,
“MPEG0005.AVI”, as filed by the State is accurate. Let the IO be summoned to
explain this aspect, on 12.08.2024.
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
29.06.2024
-- 2 of 2 --