Order 3

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
10.01.2024
At 04:00 pm.
Present : None.
1. The chargesheet/final report filed by the State (through IO, ACP A.
K. Singh) has been perused.
2. In the chargesheet/final report, it has been concluded by the IO,
ACP A. K. Singh (a) that the proceedings qua the accused, Late Sh. Ishwar Das
(Kanoongo) stand abated because he has died, on 14.07.20161 and (b) that the
accused, Sh. Rampal Verma (Patwari) is liable to be prosecuted and convicted
qua the offences punishable under Section 7/12/13 of the PC Act, 1988 read with
Section 34/120B of IPC, 1860 because sufficient evidence(s) in the shape of (i)
the complaint/statements of the complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan, (ii) the video
recording dated 21.03.2015, (iii) FSL report dated 05.04.2018 etc., have been
found against him.2
3. Also, in the chargesheet/final report, it has been concluded by the
1 The duly verified death certificate of the accused, Late Sh. Ishwar Das has been filed by the
IO at page no.132 of the chargesheet. Therefore, the said conclusion is accepted.
2 In the complaint dated 14.08.2015, the complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan has specifically alleged
that on 21.03.2015 at about 03:00 pm, the accused, Sh. Rampal Verma had taken illegal
gratification/bribe of Rs.10,000/. In the video recording dated 21.03.2015, the accused, Sh.
Rampal Verma can be seen taking illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.10,000/. In the FSL report
dated 05.04.2018, it has been confirmed that the video recording dated 21.03.2015 is
unaltered and that the voice of the accused, Sh. Rampal Verma and the complainant, Sh.
Irshad Khan can be heard in it. Therefore, the said conclusion is primafacie accepted, for the
purpose of proceedings with this case against the accused, Sh. Rampal Verma.
-- 1 of 3 --
IO, ACP A. K. Singh that the accused, Sh. Ved Prakash Meena (Tehsildar) as
well as the accused, Sh. Rajesh Rana (SDM) are not liable to be prosecuted and
convicted qua the offences punishable under Section 7/12/13 of the PC Act, 1988
read with Section 34/120B of IPC, 1860 because the only evidence against them
qua the incident dated 24.03.2015 is the complaint/statements of the
complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan, which in the absence of any corroborative
evidence, cannot/should not be relied upon.
4. In G.J. Mhatre v State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a Magistrate is of the opinion
that sufficient evidence does not exist to proceed against some of the accused
persons, the Magistrate should issue notice to the informant and take a final call
on the subject, after hearing the informant. The relevant part of the said
judgment, is reproduced below:
“9. ...The informant is not prejudicially affected when
the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to
proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate
decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for
proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes
the view that there is material for proceeding against
some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of
others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as
the First Information Report lodged becomes wholly or
partially ineffective. Therefore, this Court indicated in
Bhagwant Singh's case (supra) that where the
Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop
the proceeding or takes a view that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the
persons mentioned in the First Information Report,
notice to the Informant and grant of opportunity of
being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As
indicated above, there is no provision in the Code of
-- 2 of 3 --
issue of a notice in that regard.”
5. In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is directed that notice qua
this chargesheet/final report shall be issued to the complainant, Sh. Irshad Khan,
returnable on the next date and that only after hearing the complainant, Sh.
Irshad Khan, this Court will decide whether it should accept or reject the
conclusion of the IO, ACP A. K. Singh qua the further proceeding of this case
against the accused, Sh. Ved Prakash Meena (Tehsildar) and Sh. Rajesh Rana
(SDM).
6. List for the aforesaid purpose, on 23.02.2024.
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
10.01.2024
-- 3 of 3 --