Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: In the Court of Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani: Special Judge (PC Act)
(ACB-02), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
CNR No. DLCT11-000663-2024
CC No. 87/2024
State vs. Ved Prakash
FIR No. 5/2015
PS : ACB
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. The prosecution has filed the present chargesheet against the
accused Ved Prakash and Mohan Lal under section 7 and 13 Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the accused persons, being public
servants, demanded and accepted illegal gratification as a motive or
reward for doing an official duty.
2. Briefly, the factual matrix of the case is that on 30.03.2015,
the Complainant Sh. Shrawan Kumar went to GTB Hospital along with
Sh. Neeraj Kumar to collect ultrasound report of his maternal aunt
(maami) Smt. Bimla Verma. The Complainant was told by the doctor that
he could collect the report from Room no. 1004. When he went to Room
no. 1004, he saw that the said room was being used as a store room but
when he went a little ahead, he saw a guard there who told him that he
should go to room no. 1004. When the Complainant again went to Room
no, 1004, a doctor present there told him that he will get the reports from
Room no. 32. When the Complainant reached, he saw that two people
were taking money from another person who was already present there to
collect his reports. When the complainant asked for the report, one person
asked for the slip and said that he will get the reports in five minutes. It
was further stated in the complaint that the husband’s name was
mentioned on the slip who was only entitled to collect the report but in
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
greed of money, the report was handed over to the person who was
accompanying the complainant. The person did not verify any detail
while the name and signatures were not authentic.
3. When the said person came outside with the report, he said
“kuch de dijiye” and when the complainant asked what should he give,
the person said “jo appki ichha hai” so the complainant asked how much
did he want to which the said person said that he will have to give Rs.
100/- to the doctor and he will keep Rs. 100/- so he should give Rs. 200/-.
The complainant agreed to give Rs.200/- and said to him that he will give
the money as he was working very hard. The complainant asked the
person for the doctor’s name and reverted saying that what will he do
knowing the doctor’s name. The Complainant then asked them their
names to which one person said his name was Ramesh and stated that
Room no. 32 is open from 9Am till 12 AM and closes after that. It is
further averred in the complaint that persons namely Rakesh and Ved
Prakash who took money from the complainant had written down their
names but mentioned their names as Rakesh and Mohan but the person
who had earlier given money to them told the complainant that Mohan
was actually Ved Prakash. The Complainant further stated that they has
recorded the whole conversation and that there is corruption in every
corner in GTB Hospital.
4. The FIR bearing no. 05/15 dated 04.04.2015 was registered
at PS ACB u/s 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation of
the case was conducted by Insp.Satyender Dhull.
5. Sanction u/s 19 of POC Act, 1988 was obtained against the
accused and he has been charge sheeted u/s 7/13 of POC Act, 1988.
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
Submissions of Ld. PP for the State:
6. Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the
accused Ved Prakash should be charged with the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act because
the complaint made by the complainant, Shrawan Kumar, as well as the
FSL report as per which the voice sample of the accused has matched,
raise a grave suspicion to the effect that on 30.03.2015, the accused Ved
Prakash in furtherance of his common intention with accused Mohan Lal
demanded and accepted Rs. 200/- to give the ultrasound report to the
complainant. He also submitted that since accused Mohan Lal has already
expired, charge be framed only against accused Ved Prakash.
Submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused:
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the case of the
prosecution is based on the sting operation footage and the same clearly
shows that accused Ved Prakash is not in the said footage. He also argued
that the transcript placed on record by the prosecution mentions the names
of Shrawan, Neeraj and one person namely ‘X’ but it is not clear who the
person ‘X’ is.
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that there is no
specific demand by the accused and thus, the main conditions of section 7
PC Act are not met. He argued that the prosecution has not been able to
make out a
prima facie case against accused Ved Prakash and therefore,
he be discharged.
Rejoinder Submissions of the Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State:
9. In rejoinder, the Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
submitted that as per the FSL report, the voice sample of the accused Ved
Prakash has matched the voice of ‘X’ in the transcript. He pointed out at
the FSL report wherein it is mentioned that Speaker marked Q4 started his
speaking with the words
“Nai tum pareshan the tb mai tumhare samne
baat…..” which is clear from the transcript that the said words were
spoken by ‘X’. He also pointed out that as per the FSL report, Q4 is the
voice exhibit of accused Ved Prakash. He further submitted that speaker
‘X’ i.e. accused Ved Prakash has categorically stated “tumhara kaam
khatam ho gaya baat khatam 100-100 humein de do” which shows clear
demand of illegal gratification. In view of this, Ld. PP for the State
demanded charges be framed under section 7/13 PC Act against accused
Ved Prakash.
Law Regarding Framing of Charge
10. Before adverting to the aforesaid rival submissions made by
the Ld. PP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused, I find it
expedient to refer to the law regarding framing of charge.
11. In the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI (2020) 2 SCC
768, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the scope at the stage of
charge and observed as follows:
“Legal principles applicable in regard to an
application seeking discharge:
17.This is an area covered by a large body of case
law. We refer to a recent judgment which has
referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v
State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala,
(2010) 2 SCC 398: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] and
discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be
empowered to discharge the accused.
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of
the statements recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor
proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the
defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the
accused committed offence, then, there will be no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the
materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad
probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This,
however, would not entitle the court to make a
roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into, and the material brought on record by
the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for
entertaining the strong suspicion which can form
the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to
discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked
into at the stage when the accused seeks to be
discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of
J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar[State of J&K
v.Sudershan Chakkar, (1995) 4 SCC 181: 1995
SCC (Cri) 664: AIR 1995 SC 1954]). The
expression, “the record of the case”, used in
Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the
documents and the articles, if any, produced by the
prosecution. The Code does not give any right to
the accused to produce any document at the stage
of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of
the charge, the submission of the accused is to be
confined to the material produced by the police (see
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [State of
Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568:
2005 SCC (Cri) 415: AIR 2005 SC 359]).”
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
12. It was further observed in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy
(
Supra) that:
“28. It is here that again it becomes necessary that
we remind ourselves of the contours of the
jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC. The principle
established is to take the materials produced by the
prosecution, both in the form of oral statements and
also documentary material, and act upon it without
it been subjected to questioning through cross-
examination and everything assumed in favour of
the prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no
offence, as alleged, is made out against the
accused, it, undoubtedly, would enure to the benefit
of the accused warranting the trial court to
discharge the accused.”
13. Further, in the case of Akbar Hussain v. State of J&K (2018)
16 SCC 85, it was held as follows:
“
5...At the time of framing the charge, the trial
court has to consider the material before it by the
investigating officer and form a prima facie opinion
thereupon as to whether it is a fit case for framing
of charge under a particular provision. The standard
of proof test, which is to be applied at the final
stage, in order to find out as to whether the accused
is guilty or not on the basis of actual evidence
produced is not to be applied at the stage of
framing of the charge. Charge can be framed even
when there is a strong suspicion founded upon
materials before the Court, which leads the court to
form a presumptive opinion as to existence of the
factual ingredient constituting the offence alleged.”
14. Furthermore, in the case of Mauvin Godinho v. State of Goa
(2018) 3 SCC 358, it was held as follows:
“
12. At the outset it would be pertinent to note the
law concerning the framing of charges and the
standard which courts must apply while framing
charges. It is well settled that a court while framing
charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
Procedure should apply the prima facie standard.
Although the application of this standard depends
on facts and circumstance in each case, a prima
facie case against the accused is said to be made
out when the probative value of the evidence on all
the essential elements in the charge taken as a
whole is such that it is sufficient to induce the court
to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to
such essential elements or to consider its existence
so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon
the supposition that those facts existed or did
happen. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.”
Analysis and Conclusion
15. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. It
is sufficient if a
prima facie case is made out showing grave suspicion
that the accused has committed the offence.
16. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons Ved
Prakash and Mohan Lal, in furtherance of their common intention,
demanded and accepted Rs.200/- from the complainant as illegal
gratification. Ld. Counsel for the accused Ved Prakash has presented
twofold arguments, one, that the accused Ved Prakash cannot be seen in
the string operation footage and secondly, there is no specific demand on
his behalf for any illegal gratification. Regarding the presence of the
accused Ved Prakash in the sting operation footage, it has come on
record that as per the FSL report, the voice sample of the accused Ved
Prakash has matched the voice in the sting operation footage. It has also
been shown by the prosecution that the words spoken by X in the
transcript are the words spoken by accused Ved Prakash. Further, from
the transcript,
prima facie case is made out that the accused Ved Prakash
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
had demanded illegal gratification. Therefore, from the material placed
on record including the statement of the complainant as well as the FSL
report and the transcript, it appears that the accused Ved Prakash, being a
government servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.200/-. However, since the accused Mohan Lal has already expired,
charge will be framed only against accused Ved Prakash. Thus,
prima
facie there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused Ved
Prakash u/s 7/13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Let the charge u/s 7/13 (1) (d) of
POC Act be framed against the accused Ved Prakash.
Announced in the open court today
on this 8th day of August, 2025.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC ACT)/(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue Courts/New Delhi.
CC No. 87/2024 in FIR No. 05/15 State Vs. Ved Prakash
Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --