9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Petitioner was Commissioner (Excise), Delhi who had purportedly conspired with his co-accused-Lallan [Superintendent (Central Excise), New Delhi] and one Hemant Gandhi in getting illegal raid conducted on 28th December, 2011 at the premises of co-accused Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal to obtain bribe of Rs. 60 lac. On basis of source information, a trap was laid on 2nd January, 2012 at the parking of the office of Lallan, Superintendent (Central Excise), New Delhi where an amount of Rs. 3 lac had been kept by one Dalip Kumar, driver of aforesaid Superintendent (Central Excise) in a car (which was registered in the name of wife of Superintendent-Lallan) and in the presence of two independe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Quashing of impugned order (Annexure-A) as well as the charges framed in pursuance thereto, is sought in this petition primarily on the ground that if two views are possible on the material relied upon by prosecution, it cannot give rise to grave suspicion justifying putting an accused on trial. To contend so, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr. - AIR 2010 SC 663; Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narain Rao - 2012 Crl. L.J. 4610 (SC); Subramaniam Samy v. A. Raja - AIR 2012 SC 3336; CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Ors. - AIR 1998 SC 1406; State v. Navjot Sandhu - AIR 2005 SC 3820; State of Bihar v. Raj Kumar Mahto - 2006 Crl.L.J. 4666; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i (A-3) on 27th December, 2011 to facilitate his entry into petitioner's office for the alleged meeting on that day during lunch hours. Thus, it was submitted that the factum of aforesaid meeting stands belied in the absence of entry pass. 8. Regarding the illegal raid, attention of this Court was drawn to the statement of Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Commissioner, Anti-Evasion Branch (PW-5) to assert that depending on the nature of information, verbal approvals are given to develop intelligence information and to avoid information getting leaked out and this is done in the interest of revenue. It was asserted that no permission or authorization was given to conduct the raid in question. It was pointed out that there is no mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all No. 48, which negates the prosecution case qua petitioner. Finally, it was submitted that no definite view can be formed about the complicity of petitioner in commission of the offences in question and so, quashing of impugned order qua petitioner is sought. 12. On behalf of respondent, reliance was placed upon decisions in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another - (2012) 9 SCC 460; Soma Chakravarty v. State through CBI - (2007) 5 SCC 403; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2010) 9 SCC 368; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another - (1979) 3 SCC 4; Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Another - 2012 (10) SCALE; Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar and Another - (2000) 5 SCC 623 & Firozuddin Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he raid and stated the agreed bribe figure of 'Six Zero' in cryptic manner, then neither A-1 protested, nor demanded any explanation as to what was that figure. Rather he said "OK". So, accused No. 1 cannot claim that he cannot be charged under Section 7 of the PC Act." 14. The need for independent application of mind has been stressed upon by Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar (supra). In Prafulla Kumar (supra), relied upon by respondent, Apex Court has ruled that excepting the cases of grave suspicion, which the accused is unable to explain, Trial Court is empowered to discharge the accused. In Soma Chakravarty (supra), Apex Court has reiterated that suspicion alone cannot be the basis for framing of charge and there must exist some materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iewed from the point of view of a prudent person, solitary call No. 51, strongly relied upon by prosecution, gives rise to a vague suspicion, which at best can be termed as mere suspicion but certainly not grave suspicion. It is so said because, at the hearing, assertion of petitioner's counsel regarding reference to 'six zero' pertaining to levy/penalty of earlier successful raid, was not refuted by respondent's counsel. 17. During the course of hearing, it was not shown by respondent's counsel as to how call No. 48 can be reasonably explained. As call No. 48 is prior in time, so first prosecution has to explain this call and then only, petitioner can be called upon to give a reasonable explanation regarding subsequent call No. 51. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
