Interim Order 6

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.68/2023
State v Rampal Verma & Anr.
FIR No.28/2015
PS AntiCorruption Branch
07.05.2024 (At 10:01 am)
Present : Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. PP for the State.
Complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan is absent.
IO, ACP A. K. Singh is also absent.
The IO, ACP A. K. Singh has sent an exemption from appearance
on the ground that he has to appear before the Chief Information Commissioner.
The said exemption is allowed. Be awaited for appearance of the complainant.
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
07.05.2024
At 02:25 pm
Present : None for the State.
Complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan is absent.
1. Despite taking this date by choice, the complainant, Sh. Irshad
Khan has not appeared. From his nonappearance, it is inferred that he has no
objection, if this Court accepts the conclusion of the IO, ACP A. K. Singh that the
existing evidence/material is insufficient to proceed against the accused, Sh. Ved
Prakash Meena (Tehsildar) and the accused, Sh. Rajesh Rana (SDM).
2. The chargesheet/final report filed by the State (through IO, ACP A.
K. Singh) has been again perused. Upon perusal thereof, the aforesaid
-- 1 of 2 --
conclusion of the IO, ACP A. K. Singh is accepted because in so far as the
incident dated 24.03.2015 in the office of the accused, Sh. Rajesh Rana (SDM) is
concerned, the State has not found any evidence to corroborate the version of
the complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan; because during investigation, the accused, Sh.
Ved Prakash Meena (Tehsildar) and the accused, Sh. Rajesh Rana (SDM) have
vehemently denied the said incident dated 24.03.2015; because despite grant of
opportunity, the complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan has not come forward and
presented any argument/corroborative material, for this Court to believe that the
said incident dated 24.03.2015 had actually occurred and because from the
record of CC No. 22/2021, State v HC Sahdev Singh, CC No.23/2021, State v HC
Yogender & Anr., CC No. 50/2021, State v HC Sohan Pal, CC No. 51/2021, State
v HC Sohan Pal and CC No.52/2021, State v Ct. Naresh, all decided by this
Court, on 23.02.2023, this Court has knowledge that the complainant, Sh. Irshad
Khan is an unsavory witness.1
3. In the order dated 10.01.2024, this Court has already concluded
that interalia in view of (i) the complaint/statements of the complainant, Sh.
Irshad Khan, (ii) the video recording dated 21.03.2015 and (iii) the FSL report
dated 05.04.2018, this case is ripe for proceeding against the accused, Sh. Ram
Pal Verma (Patwari). Keeping in view of the said conclusion and keeping in view
the sanction dated 07.12.2020 granted qua the accused, Sh. Ram Pal Verma
(Patwari) by Sh. Sanjeev Khirwar, Principal Secretary (Revenue)cumDivisional
Commissioner, Delhi, the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections
7/12/13 of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 34/120B of IPC, 1860 is taken as
per Section 190 (b) of CrPC, 1973 and it is directed that summons shall be issued
in respect of the accused, Sh. Ram Pal Verma (Patwari), who has been charge
sheeted without arrest by the State, returnable on 05.06.2024.
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
07.05.2024
1 Not everything said by him can be taken on its face value.
-- 2 of 2 --