Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2888 of 2019
Revisionist :- Vaibhav Sharma And Another
Opposite Party :- C.B.I.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amitabh Singh,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.),Gunjan Jadwani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 25.4.2019 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad whereby discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected and order dated 30.4.2019 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad whereby charges have been framed against the revisionists in connection with FIR no.RC2172017A0010, u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. SPE/CBI/ACU V/New Delhi, registered as Special Case 7/17, pending before Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that from the perusal of the supplementary charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I shows that there was no involvement of any public servant and in-fact the revisionists have no relation with any public servant and neither the revisionists even tried to contact any public servant. He further argued that even the court below while passing the impugned order observed that C.B.I has failed to establish any public or Government Servant who has been influenced but has taken a contrary stand and rejected the discharge application of the revisionists on 25.4.2019. Moreover, out of 74 conversations recorded during the investigation only four conversations with revisionist no.2 bearing numbers Q-1(1), Q-1(31), Q-1(59), Q-1(66), wherein there is not even a whisper for bribe or illegal gratification has been made to influence any public servant nor any promise has been made to commit or omit any act which is illegal or contrary to the land, hence no offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the revisionists. In this regard, he has also placed reliance of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Babji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.2159 of 2009 decided on 9.8.2018.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned orders and pointed out that the learned trial court has dealt with the issue with respect to disclosing an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act giving cogent and sound reasons which is reflected from the order rejecting the discharge application of the revisionists by passing the impugned order. He further pointed out that Rs.1 Crore were recovered from the house of the revisionists which was brought by co-accused Nishant Singh who was the son of co-accused Narendra Singh for influencing the members of Committee of Medical Council of India scheduled on 3.8.2017 in which the agenda of the medical college of co-accused Narendra Singh and Nishant Singh was also there and the Government had restrained them from taking admission of students for the Sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and the entire episode was conspired for influencing the members of the Committee of Medical Council of India and the money transaction took place between the co-accused persons. There appears to be electronic evidence in the form of conversation which took place between the parties and the trap party acted upon the same which arrested the accused Kunwar Nishant Singh with Rs.20 lacs giving to the revisionist Vaibhav Sharma and Vinod Sharma at their house and further Rs.1 crore was recovered from the house of the two revisionists which Kunwar Nishant Singh had given to them with the consent of co-accused Narendra Singh with the object of influencing members of the Committee of Ministry and Family Welfare so that the Chairman of World College of Medical Science and Hospital, Janjhar (Hariyana) whose Chairman is Narendra Singh, favourable orders may be passed in his favour. The trial court after finding a prima-facie case against the revisionists collected during the course of investigation, has rightly rejected his discharge application on 25.4.2019 and has framed charges against the revisionists for the offence in question on 30.4.2019.
After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, I am of the view that admittedly charges have been framed against the revisionists and trial court after finding that prima-facie case is made out against the revisionists has rightly rejected his discharge application on 25.4.2019 and framed charges against the revisionists on 30.4.2019, the trial is in progress, hence it would not be desirable for this Court to interfere in the proceedings of the trial court. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has summarized the principles in respect of framing of charge or discharge of accused and in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2013) 11 SCC 476 has held as under:-
"While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if, there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon fact and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charges."
And recently on 01.05.2019 in State By Karnataka Lokayukta Vs. M. R. Hiremath, 2019 SCC online SC 734 has reiterated the said principles holding that at this stage, considering an application for discharge, the Court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.
In view of the foregoing discussions and settled propositions of law, there appears to be no irregularity, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the trial court, hence no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused.
This revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019/Gaurav