Order 10

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.71/2023
State v Ram Hinchh
FIR No.53/2014
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
29.06.2024
Present : None.
1. The IO, ACP Ranbir Singh has sent a report informing that HC
Mahender Singh is still in service.
2. In the final report/charge-sheet filed in this case, the IO, ACP Ranbir
Singh has inter-alia concluded1 that HC Mahender Singh, who was investigating
FIR No.513/2013, PS Shahbad Dairy against the complainant, Sh. Amit Mann, is
not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, for demanding
Rs.11,000/- from the complainant, Sh. Amit Mann as “file charge” because apart
from the oral version/testimony of the complainant, Sh. Amit Mann, there is no
other evidence to the effect that HC Mahender Singh had done so. Keeping in
view, the said conclusion of the IO, ACP Ranbir Singh and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. J. Mhatre v State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC
768, the complainant, Sh. Amit Mann was summoned to appear before this Court
and make any protest against the said conclusion of the IO, ACP Ranbir Singh.
Upon appearance in this Court, on 01.06.2024, the complainant, Sh. Amit Mann
had not made any such protest. But upon inquiry, he had maintained that HC
Mahender Singh had demanded Rs.11,000/- from him during the investigation of
FIR No.513/2013, PS Shahbad Dairy.
3. During the hearing of this case on various dates, I had inquired from
the IO, ACP Ranbir Singh, if he is conscious of any judgment of a Superior Court,
as per which, it is necessary that the oral testimony of a complainant/public
person qua demand of money/bribe by a public servant, has to be corroborated
by other evidence, in order to be believed. In response thereof, the IO, ACP
Ranbir Singh had not shown me any judgment. In my view, only in cases where
1 The other conclusion drawn by the IO, ACP Ranbir Singh is that sufficient evidence exists to
proceed against HC Ram Hinchh. The order on this aspect, shall be passed later.
-- 1 of 2 --
the complainant/public person has himself offered to pay the money/bribe to the
public servant or actually paid the money/bribe to the public servant, the version
of the complainant/public person would require corroboration through other
evidence (re: the law explained in Panalal Damodar Rathi v State of Maharashtra,
(1979) 4 SCC 526). But in a case like this, where the complainant/public person
had not made any offer to pay the money/bribe to the public servant, the public
servant can be convicted/punished, if the sole version/testimony of the
complainant/public person is found to be reliable/of sterling quality.
4. In view of the aforesaid, I disagree with the conclusion of the IO,
ACP Ranbir Singh that the sole version/testimony of the complainant, Sh. Amit
Mann to the effect that during the investigation of FIR No.513/2013, PS Shahbad
Dairy, HC Mahender Singh had demanded Rs.11,000/- from him can be
disbelieved at this stage itself i.e. at the stage of summoning of the accused as
per Section 204 of CrPC, 1973.
5. As a result of the aforesaid conclusion of mine, the IO, ACP Ranbir
Singh/the SHO, PS ACB are directed to now seek sanction under Section 19 of
the PC Act, 1988 qua prosecution of HC Mahender Singh from the
competent/sanctioning authority. As a matter of abundant caution, it is expressly
clarified that this direction shall not be construed to be a direction to the
competent/sanctioning authority to grant the sanction under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 qua prosecution of HC Mahender Singh and in
no manner, shall be construed to take away the discretion vested in the
competent/sanctioning authority to refuse grant of sanction under Section 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 qua prosecution of HC Mahender Singh.
6. Copy of this order shall be sent to the IO, ACP Ranbir Singh/the
SHO, PS ACB for ensuring compliance.
7. List for report regarding compliance of this order, on 22.08.2024.
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
29.06.2024
-- 2 of 2 --