Interim Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 1 of 15
In the Court of Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani: Special Judge (PC Act)
(ACB-02), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
CNR No. DLCT11-000835-2023
CC No. 68/2023 & IA No. 1/2025
State Vs. Rampal Verma & Anr.
FIR No. 28/2015
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. This order will decide the application for discharge filed on
behalf of the accused.
2. The prosecution has filed the present chargesheet against the
accused Rampal Verma and abated chargesheet against deceased accused
Ishwar Dass under section 7/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
r/w sections 34/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleging that the accused
persons, being public servants, demanded and accepted illegal gratification
as a motive or reward for doing an official duty.
Brief facts:
3. As per the chargesheet, the factual matrix of the case is that
on 25.03.2015, the Complainant, Mr. Irshad Khan S/o Mohd. Umar,
President of Janta Ka Adhikar Samaj Kalyan Samiti, had filed a written
complaint before Anti Corruption Branch against all the employees of
S.D.M. Office and the employees of Delhi Urban Shelter Support Board for
demanding and accepting bribe for making fake Income Certificate,
Mutation and Demarcation documents which was registered vide
MC-32/15 and the same was assigned to Insp. Rohtash Kumar.
4. The complainant stated in his complaint that he came to
know from a secret source that at the D.C. Office, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93
-- 1 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 2 of 15
and the office of the S.D.M, Seemapuri, Delhi-110095, the government
servants posted there were taking huge bribe for preparing fake Income
Certificate and the documents of mutation and demarcation. He further
stated that on 02.08.2014, 14.08.2014, 19.08.2014 and 21.03.2015, he went
to get the documents of demarcation of his property prepared and met Sh.
Ishwar Das (Kanoongo), Sh. K.P. Sharma (DDA Kanoongo) and Rampal
(Patwari) who demanded a bribe of Rs.5,00,000/- from him to prepare the
documents of demarcation of his property and stated that the said money
will go to Tehsildar and S.D.M. and then only his work would be done. The
complainant also stated that the said government servants also stated to him
that the Tehsildar and S.D.M. do not take money directly and therefore, the
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- should be given to them. He asked the said
government servants that all the documents of his property are complete
and he is in possession of his property, they why they were demanding
money to prepare the documents of demarcation of his property to which,
they said
“kaam karwana hai to paise dene hi honge warna tu office ke
chakkar kat-ta rahega aur tera kaam nahi hoga”.
5. The complainant also stated in his complaint that he had
conducted sting operation to expose the corruption spread in the
government departments. Thereafter, on 21.03.2015, the complainant again
met Mr. Ishwar Das, Kanoongo who again took the bribe of Rs. 10,000/-
from him and gave the same to Rampal, Patwari. The complainant went to
them many times and every time, they demanded money from him and on
23.03.2015, when he again met Mr. Ishwar Das, Kanoongo and Mr. Rampal
Verma, Patwari, Mr. Rampal Patwari misbehaved with him. Even S.D.M.
misbehaved with him and stated that he would delete the record of his
properties and he would not be able to do anything about the same. In the
meantime, one official from DDA also arrived there and stated that the said
-- 2 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 3 of 15
complainant has conducted sting operation of many officials of DDA and
filed complaints against them upon which, all the said government officials
started beating the complainant and damaged his camera and the memory
card and the complainant somehow managed to save himself from them.
The complainant also stated in his complaint that he had not given money to
the said government officials to get his work done but he did so to expose
the corrupt government officials so that the government and public can be
saved and corruption can be eliminated from the government departments.
He also filed the DVD/CD containing the video recording of sting operation
conducted by him along with his complaint. He requested for strict legal
action against the corrupt government officials and to protect him from
them.
6. Thereafter, on 25.05.2015, the complainant went to the office
of Anti Corruption Branch and stated that he had given one single CD
containing videos of different dates and different government servants and
therefore, he would give separate CD for each government servant and
transcript and then only, action be taken on his complaint.
7. On 01.06.2015, the complainant filed a fresh complaint along
with documents in Anti Corruption Branch. During the enquiry on
complaint dated 01.06.2015, the complainant submitted another complaint
about different incidents along with transcript of recordings dated
14.08.2014, 19.08.2014 and 21.03.2015 along with same VCD. Thereafter,
during the course of enquiry, the complainant submitted a specific
complaint on 14.08.2015 along a VCD and Certificate u/s 65B Evidence
Act, on which endorsement was made on 23.09.2015 by Insp. Rohtash and
the present case was registered.
8. The FIR bearing no. 28/2015 dated 04.04.2015 was
-- 3 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 4 of 15
registered at PS ACB u/s 7/12/13 Prevention of Corruption Act and the
investigation of the case was conducted by Insp. Rohitash Kumar.
9. Since accused Ishwar Das had expired, abated chargesheet
has been submitted against him. Sanction u/s 19 of POC Act, 1988 was
obtained against accused Rampal Verma and he has been charge sheeted u/s
7/12/13 of POC Act, 1988.
Case of the accused:
10. 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 only accused Ishwar Das is involved in this case. He argued that
accused Rampal has nothing to do with the present matter. Ld. Counsel for
the accused put forward multifold arguments which shall be dealt with
below one by one:
a. Complainant is an unsavory witness:
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the Ld. Predecessor
of this Court has observed vide order dated 07.05.2024 that the complainant
is an unsavory witness and that his past conduct is not credible or reliable.
He submitted that on the other hand, accused Rampal Verma has no past
antecedents. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the State argued that the past
conduct of the complainant is immaterial to determine whether charge shall
be framed in the present case or not.
12. It is trite position of law that the past conduct of complainant
cannot be seen at the stage of charge/ discharge and it is the facts of the case
that have to be seen to determine if
prima facie case is made out so as to
frame the charges or not. Therefore, this argument of the accused is
-- 4 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 5 of 15
dismissed.
b. Allegations are general and vague in nature:
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there is no allegation
of any specific demand or acceptance by the accused and nothing has been
recovered from him, thus, the main conditions of section 7, 12 or 13 PC Act
are not met. He argued that the prosecution has not been able to make out a
prima facie case against accused Rampal Verma and therefore, he be
discharged.
14. In contrast, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that
the accused Rampal Verma should be charged with the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 7/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act because the complaint made by the complainant, Irshad Khan clearly
spells out the role played by the accused and clarifies the act of conspiracy
in demanding and accepting bribe to carry out an otherwise official duty.
He also relied upon the FSL report as per which the voice sample of the
accused Rampal has matched. Ld. PP for the State submitted that the
accused Rampal can be clearly seen in the video recording receiving bribe
money from accused Ishwar Das and upon hearing the conversation
between him, Kanoongo Ishwar Das and complainant Irshad, it is amply
clear that he conspired with deceased accused Ishwar Das and accepted
bribe money from him after Ishwar Das received the same from the
complainant. On this basis, he submitted that since accused Ishwar Das has
already expired, charge be framed only against accused Rampal Verma.
15. Since, as per the FSL report, the voice sample of the accused
Rampal Verma has matched the voice in the sting operation footage and
the transcript attached with the chargesheet shows that categorical
-- 5 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 6 of 15
conversation has taken place between the complainant, deceased accused
Ishwar Das as well as accused Rampal Verma, the argument of Ld.
Counsel for the accused that the accused Rampal Verma has not demanded
or accepted bribe seems to be fallacious. The transcript
prima facie shows
active participation of the accused in the entire conspiracy to demand and
accept the bribe money.
c. Allegations against Kanoongo and only other senior officials:
16. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant
has only made allegations against the SDM, Kanoongo and other senior
officials and not against accused Rampal Verma.
17. This argument put forward by Ld. Counsel for the accused is
misconceived as there are categorical allegations against the accused
Rampal Verma for conspiring with Ishwar Dass in demanding and
accepting bribe.
d. No favour or forbearance towards desired work of complainant:
18. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused
Rampal Verma did not even have the capacity to do the work alleged by the
complainant. He submitted that when the accused does not have the
capacity to carry out the particular official duty for which the bribe money
is alleged to have taken, then he cannot be roped in the case of corruption.
He submitted that accused Rampal had no capacity to do the work and the
work was to be done with Ishwar Das and other senior officials. He also
pointed out that it is not mentioned anywhere that any demand of money
was raised by accused Rampal and that the work was to be done by Rampal.
19. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State
-- 6 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 7 of 15
submitted that for there to be a charge under section 7, 12 or 13, it is not
imperative that the bribe taker had the capacity to do the official work or
not. What matters is that he had taken the bribe to get an official work done.
Ld. PP for the State further pointed out that the accused Rampal has been
alleged to have conspired to demand and accept bribe along with the
deceased accused Ishwar Das and not independently, thus, charges be
framed under section 7/12/13 PC Act r/w sections 34/120B IPC against
accused Rampal Verma.
20. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Rampal
Verma had conspired with the deceased accused Ishwar Dass to take bribe
from the complainant. It is not the case of the accused that Ishwar Dass also
did not have the capacity to carry out the alleged official duty. In the facts of
the case, it is not required to be determined whether the accused Rampal
Verma had the capacity to carry out the alleged official duty of
demarcation. What is imperative is that he had allegedly conspired with
another official to take bribe from the complainant. Therefore, this
argument is also dismissed.
e. Insufficient Digital and documentary evidence in the final report:
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the video recording
or the transcript do not show the involvement of the accused. He submitted
that in the transcript, it is clear that the accused has stated that the
demarcation will be done by a machine and that they are required to pay for
the same. He submitted that the state has confused the payment of fee with
the bribe money and filed this false case against him.
22. Countering the submissions of the accused, Ld. PP for the
State argued that as per the FSL report, the voice sample of the accused
-- 7 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 8 of 15
Rampal Verma has matched which shows that he accused Rampal was very
well present while the bribe money was being demanded and accepted. He
also pointed out that Rs. 10,000/- which has been taken by the accused
persons was not towards the machine but bribe money and in fact the said
bribe money was given to accused Rampal by deceased accused Ishwar Das
which shows that the bribe money was actually taken by the accused
Rampal.
23. Careful reading of the transcript shows that the conversation
regarding the machine charges is separate from the conversation regarding
acceptance of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, this court is of the view that there is
prima facie case that the accused Rampal Verma had conspired to receive
the bribe money.
f. No corroborative statement of independent witness or senior official
against Rampal Verma:
24. Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out that the then
Tehsildar, SDM had not deposed against accused Rampal Verma.
However, this court is of the view that the statements of the said officials
are not required when the complainant has leveled categorical allegations
against the accused.
Examination and Analysis:
25. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that no
prima facie case is
made out against the accused and therefore, he should be discharged. He
also submitted that it is settled law that if two views are possible, then the
accused should be discharged.
-- 8 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 9 of 15
a. Law Regarding Framing of Charge
26. The law regarding framing of charge was elaborated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v.
CBI (2020) 2 SCC 768, wherein it was 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.
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
-- 9 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 10 of 15
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]).”
27. 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.”
28. 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
-- 10 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 11 of 15
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.”
29. 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
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.”
b. Law regarding discharge if two views are possible:
30. In the matter of "P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.,"
(2010) 2 SCC 398, the Supreme Court took note of the Judgment in Union
of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) and after quoting Section 227
Cr. P. C observed as under.
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim
of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which
-- 11 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 12 of 15
reads as under:
"227. Discharge. - If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused” clearly show
that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the
charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it
is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros
and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is
really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has
merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. In other words, the
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the
nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which ex facie
disclose that there are suspicious circumstances
against the accused so as to frame a charge against
him.”
31. In Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2
SCC 135, the Supreme Court after relying on Union of India Vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal (supra) observed as under:
“12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie
-- 12 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 13 of 15
case has been made out against the appellant. In
exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that
the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under the said section has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out; where
the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by
and large if two views are equally possible and the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before
him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a
post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but
has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court but should not make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.”
32. In the matter of "State of M. P. Vs S. B. Johari & Ors.", (2000)
2 SCC 57, the Supreme Court has held that:
“
charge can be quashed if the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of
the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by
defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the
accused committed the particular offence and in
such case, there would be no sufficient ground for
proceeding with the trial.”
33. The Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State
-- 13 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 14 of 15
of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 547 opined as follows:
"At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the
principles which have been laid down by the Court, what the
court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office.
The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material
to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied
upon the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the
sense the court dons the mantle of the trial judge hearing
arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a
full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the
prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the
accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that
with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused
to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices."
Analysis and Conclusion:
34. Even though it is trite law that if two views are possible and
the court is satisfied that the evidence gives rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, it will be fully justified to discharge
the accused, however, it is also 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.
35. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons
Rampal Verma and Ishwar Das, in furtherance of their common intention
and in conspiracy with each other, demanded and accepted money from the
complainant as illegal gratification. Ld. Counsel for the accused Rampal
Verma has presented multifold arguments which have already been
discussed above. Considering the above arguments as well as the entire
record including the complaints as well as the FSL reports, this court is of
the view that there are no two views possible in this case at this stage and
there exists a
prima facie case that the accused Rampal Verma, being a
-- 14 of 15 --
CC No. 68/2023 in FIR No. 28/15
	State Vs. Rampal Verma
Page 15 of 15
government servant, has conspired with the deceased accused Ishwar Dass
in demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant to get the
demarcation of his properties conducted. Since the accused Ishwar Das has
already expired, charge will be framed only against accused Rampal
Verma. Thus,
prima facie there is sufficient material to frame charge
against the accused Rampal Verma u/s 7/12/13(1)(a)/13(1)(d) of PC Act
r/w section 34/120B of IPC. Thus, the application for discharge filed on
behalf of the accused is dismissed.
Announced in the open court today
on this 26th day of August, 2025.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC ACT)/(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue Courts/New Delhi.
-- 15 of 15 --