IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44753 of 2010 NITYA NAND PATHAK S/O- LATE KAMLA NANDAN PATHAK, R/O- MOHALLA- TOPEKHANA BAZAR, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- MUNGER. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR For the petitioner : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate For the C.B.I.: Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate - ---------- - 3 16.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Central Bureau of Investigation. Petitioner, who is facing charge punishable under diverse provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, (for short “the Act”) including Sections 7 and 13(2) as also under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code has approached this Court for quashment of the order framing the charges. He, therefore, seeks order to quash the pending criminal proceeding at its nascent stage. By the impugned order dated 10.12.2004, learned Trial Court (Special Judge, C.B.I., North Bihar, Patna) framed charges against the petitioner in Special Case No. 2/2007 (R.C. 3(A)/ 2007). A perusal of the impugned order, it appears that charges have been framed under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act besides other charges. Let it be recorded that earlier to this, petitioner had approached this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 33347/2008 seeking quashment of the order dated 10.7.2008 passed by learned Special 2 Judge, C.B.I. North Bihar, Patna whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for discharge was considered and rejected. This Court, by proceeding dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure-2), dismissed the said application. For better appraisal, the order dated 22.9.2010 is extracted, in extensor, hereinbelow: “Both sides present. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of order dated 10.07.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, North Bihar, Patna in Special Case no. 2 of 2007 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking discharge has been considered and rejected. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha representing Central Bureau of Investigation states that during the pendency of this application charge(s) have already been framed and trial has commenced in which few witnesses have been examined. Mr. Rajeeva Ray appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid statement. In that view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned. The application is dismissed.” Complainant Niranjan Prasad Singh filed a written statement on 19.3.2007 before Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., ACB, Patna alleging therein that one Suresh Prasad Singh, an Assistant of Head Record Office, R.M.S., Samastipur had demanded Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant for securing him relief in the pending 3 departmental inquiry against the complainant. Accordingly, the same was verified and pre-trap memo was prepared whereafter the complainant along with the C.B.I. sleuths visited aforesaid Suresh Prasad Singh to whom the amount was tendered on demand and accepted by him. He was taken into custody. Thereafter, it appears, aforesaid Suresh Prasad Singh disclosed that the amount was demanded from the complainant on behalf of the petitioner who was then serving as the Superintendent of Post, R.M.S., Jamalpur. Recovery Memo (Annexure-3 series) which has been placed on record read as under: “Shri Suresh Prasad Singh pleaded that he had taken the bribe from the complainant for Dr. N.N. Pathak Supdt. of Post NB Division RMS Samastipur as he would have done his work. To prove his point Shri Suresh Pd. Singh requested to ring Dr. N.N. Pathak by his mobile phone bearing no. 9939052471. His request was acceded to and he was asked to ring Dr. N.N. Pathak and put on his speaker phone of his mobile on during the course of conversation as the conversation would have been heard by the witnesses and the complainant and the CBI team members. Shri Suresh Pd. Singh rang Dr. N.N. Pathak on his mobile no. 9835003728. Shri Suresh Pd. Singh wished Dr. N.N. Pathak who picked the phone and Shri Suresh Pd. Singh wished Dr. N.N. Pathak who picked the phone and Shri Suresh Pd. Singh told him “Sir Niranjan Aaya Hua hai. Wah Paisa le kar aaya hai. Boleya kya karma hai. Dr. N.N. Pathak replied „Accha Tekh hai” Then Shri Suresh Pd. Singh asked Dr. N.N. Pathak “Niranjan ke sath aap ke deara par aate hain. Wahin appko paise de degne” Dr. N.N. Pathak replied “Teek hai aa joa hum tumahra intezar karenge”. This conversation was heard by the witnesses, complainant and the CBI team members. 4 Shri Suresh Pd. Singh was declared arrested after observing all legal and administrative formalities. Separate Arrest Memo was prepared and which has been signed by the witnesses and Shri Suresh Pd. Singh. Both Mobile phone having no. 9939052471 and 9431834023 were taken into police possession for safe custody and further investigation. Then the tainted G.C. notes recovered from the possession of Shri Suresh Pd. Singh having the same numbers as stated above i.e. Sl N0 G.C. Note no. Denomination 1 3 AD 290442 Rs. 500/- 2 4 CE 611049 Rs. 500/- 3 6AD 926352 Rs. 500/- 4 2AM 893909 Rs. 500/- 5 6BK 998350 Rs. 500/- 6 6BN 073917 Rs. 500/- 7 3AD 290447 Rs. 500/- 8 4LD 917965 Rs. 100/- 9 8GH 790342 Rs. 100/- 10 4KW 125 329 Rs. 100/- 11 4HB 410527 Rs. 100/- 12 4KK 192406 Rs. 100/- Was handed over to Shri Suresh Pd. Singh for handing over to Dr. N.N. Pathak as demanded by Dr. N.N. Pathak in presence of witnesses and the complainant and CBI team members. Shri Suresh Pd. Singh kept the tainted G.C. note in his upper left chest pocket of the T- Shirt. The witness Shri K.P. Thakur was asked to shadow Shri Suresh Pd. Singh and complainant. The witnesses complainant CBI team members and Shri Suresh Pd. Singh washed their hand with soap and water. The complainant witnesses C.B.I. team members and Shri Suresh Pd. Singh left the retiring room for the likely place of transaction i.e. residence of Dr. N.N. Pathak located in the Postal Colony. Shri Suresh Pd. Singh accompanied by Shri Prabeen Kumar Inspector and Constable Ajay Kumar, complainant and the Shadow witness Shri K.P. Thakur approached the residence of Dr. N.N. Pathak. The other witness and the CBI team members followed them. As Shri Suresh Pd. Singh neared the residence of Dr. N.N. Pathak, 5 who was sitting outside his house in the open field. Dr. N.N. Pathak came out and Shri Suresh Pd. Singh and the complainant wished him. The complainant pleaded Dr. N.N. Pathak to do his work. Shri Suresh Pd. Singh told “Tumhara kam sahib kar dengne” and handed over the tainted G.C. note to Dr. N.N. Pathak who kept it in his right hand. The conversation was heard and seen by the witnesses and the complainant and the CBI team members as it was an open space. Shri Prabeen Kumar Inspector challenged Dr. N.N. Pathak for demanding and accepting bribe and took hold of his right hand Shri R.P. Pandey Inspector took hold of the left hand of Dr. N.N. Pathak. As soon as Shri Prabeen Kumar caught hold of right hand of Dr. N.N. Pathak he threw the tainted G.C. Note in the open field. The tainted G.C. note was collected by the witnesses from the field and which tallied with the pre-trap memorandum Dr. N.N. Pathak was asked to sit in the open field in front of his house. Thereafter, a solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared with water in a glass. Therefter Dr. N.N. Pathak was asked to dip his right hand in the solution of sodium carbonate kept in the glass. When he did so the colour of the solution started turning pink as a chemical reaction. This hand wash was preserved in glass phial with an identity mark (RW-NNP). The glass phial was sealed and signed by the witnesses complainant Dr. N.N. Pathak and the above stated CBI team members. “ Accordingly, the petitioner was also made accused in the case. It thus appears that in the case at hand, 02 traps were laid. The matter was thereafter investigated by the C.B.I. Having found prima facie case against the accused persons including the petitioner, charge-sheet was submitted whereafter an application was filed by the petitioner seeking discharge which was considered and 6 rejected by a reasoned order leading to filing of Cr. Misc. No. 33347 of 2008 which was rejected by order dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure-2). Thereafter the Court below framed charges under each head(s) against which the present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that mere recovery of tainted notes by itself cannot prove the charge in absence of demand therefor. He relies on a judgment since reported in 2009 (3) S.C.C. (paragraph 18) (C.M. Girish Babu versus C.B.I). He also relies on a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court since reported in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 135 (Dilawar Balu Kurane versus State of Maharashtra). Learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has only to satisfy itself about presence of sufficient evidence/material against the petitioner. It is submitted that there was, in fact two traps conducted in the present case, one in relation to demand + acceptance of money by an Assistant of the Postal Department whereafter, on his disclosure, another trap was conducted in respect of the petitioner. It is submitted that materials are adequate on record justifying framing of charge. It is submitted that this Court had an occasion to appraise those materials/evidence 7 while considering the earlier application filed by the petitioner against order refusing to discharge. Relying on a judgment of the Apex Court since reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 40 (State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi) submitted that even on grave suspicion based on evidence/material on record the court would be justified in framing charge(s) and proceed with trial. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. As would appear from the order dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure-2) passed on earlier application filed on behalf of the petitioner, this Court had refused to interfere with the order whereby his application seeking discharge was rejected considering the materials on record as reflected from the order impugned therein as also the statement made by the Central Bureau of Investigation that the trial had already commenced. It is settled law as has been found in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2018 that the Court is not required to make a detail inquiry with regard to adequacy/sufficiency of the materials on record. Once the Court is satisfied from the materials on record that there is grave suspicion against the petitioner having indulged in the commission of the offence then the Court would be justified in framing of charge. I have, therefore, extracted the Recovery Memorandum 8 (Annexure-3) to show that there is/are sufficient material on record to demonstrate grave suspicion about involvement of the petitioner in the crime. This Court has also kept in focus provision contained in Section 20 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Supreme Court in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 135 had quashed the charge considering that material on record was/were wholly deficient. This Court, on perusal of the judgment, finds that special facts appearing in the said case, was/were noticed in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment which persuaded the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to form a view that materials on record were deficient. Said case was decided on a different set of facts. It is more than apparent from the retrieval memo that the demand was made on behalf of the petitioner and the gratification/bribe received by Suresh Prasad Singh was later tendered and accepted by the petitioner. This Court is thus of the view that there is adequate/sufficient material on record justifying framing of charge and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is not required to be quashed at this stage. This Court finds no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)