06/12/2024
Order framing Charge by Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jammu ("Special Judge‟ for short) set aside by High Court.
Order shows a complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned Special Judge..
High Court discharges accused in
Dalip Thusu And Another vs Union Territory Of J&K on 29 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dhar J.
4. The allegations against petitioner No.2, who was posted as Deputy General Manager, JKPCC, Unit 4th at the relevant time, are that petitioner No.1 vide his letter UO No. 287 dated 30.11.2005 had assigned the work relating to preparation of preliminary project report and Cost Offer to petitioner No.2 who obtained Designs and Drawings from M/S High Rise Designers, Pvt. Ltd, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. It has been averred in the chargesheet that, on the basis of these Designs and Drawings, petitioner No.2 prepared the preliminary project report and Cost Offer which was submitted to petitioner No.1. It is alleged that it was the duty of petitioner No.2 to conduct prior investigations on the aspects, like bridge foundation investigation, Hydrology, subsoil explorations as also the investigations relating to bearing strength of soil below the foundation and silt factor, but petitioner No.2 did not undertake any such exercise.
11 In a recent case of Shashikant Sharma and othrs vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037, the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. It has been further observed that, if, upon consideration of the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents filed by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 173 CrPC, the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out, then the Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against the accused.
12 In the light of the aforesaid legal position, let us now analyse the facts and the material relevant to the present case.
14 In the present case, there is no allegation in the FIR or in the chargesheet that the petitioners were entrusted with any property or that they have misappropriated the same or converted the same to their own use. In fact, even the Investigating Officer has concluded in the chargesheet that only offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of PC Act are made out against the petitioners. There is no mention of offence under Section 5(1)(c) of PC Act in the final conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer. The fact that the Special Judge has framed charge against the petitioners under Section 9 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also without discussing its ingredients or referring to any supporting material, shows a complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned Special Judge. The framing of charge for offence under 5(1)(c) of PC Act against the petitioners by the Special Judge, in terms of the impugned order is, therefore, without any basis and deserves to be set aside. 15 That takes us to the charge for offence under Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act. As is clear from the language of Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act as quoted hereinbefore, a public servant can be said to have committed offence of criminal misconduct if he, by corrupt or illegal means, has abused his position as a public servant which has resulted in obtaining for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
26 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of framing charges against the petitioners is set aside and the petitioners are discharged. Consequently, the chargesheet stands dismissed.
