Anil Dutt Sharma v. State (Gnct of Delhi)

TALWANT SINGH, J NOVEMBER 02, 2022/nk

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 02.11.2022 + CRL.REV.P. 345/2018, CRL.M.A. 7333/2018, CRL.M.A. 7334/2018 CRL.M.A. 41190/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4294/2020 ANIL DUTT SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Geeta Lutrha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manoj Kr. Dwivedi & Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advs. versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The present revision petition has been filed against order of framing of charge dated 05.07.2017 and the charges being framed on 10.07.2017 by the learned Special Court in case FIR No. 51/2014 registered under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'PC Act' read with Section 419/120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to 'IPC'). 1.1 The relevant portion of the order on charge is reproduced hereunder:- "7. There is no teeth in the arguments of learned Counsels for accused persons. The accused Anil Dutt Sharma as per the material on record, was caught red handed with illegal gratification 6f Rs. One Lakh at the place appointed by him. The statement of complainant Joginder Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and his complaint prima facie reveal that the accused had fixed the meeting time between 3.00 to 4.00 pm on 24.06.2014 at Jafrabad pulia, which the accused had subsequently changed to an earlier time at Ex- Taj restaurant by telephonically informing the complainant. I have also gone, through the call detail record dated 24.06.2014 and the transcription of the conversation between accused Anil Dutt Sharma and complainant held at 2.24 pm on 24.06.2014 which prima facie supports the case of the prosecution that it was accused Anil Dutt Sharma who had , changed the meeting time to an earlier time and location from Jafrabad pulia to Ex-Taj restaurant. 8. So far as the discrepancies in the statements of the complainant Joginder Singh and Panch Witness Naipal Singh are concerned, they are minor in nature and of n6 importance at this stage. Similarly, the argument: of learned Counsel for accused Anil Dutt Sharma that the complainant had friendly relations with accused Anil Dutt ShaAtia and thus, he was aware of the fact that accused Anil Dutt Sharma was not a public servant or even remotely connected with the MCD is a matter of trial and cannot be ascertained at this stage. 9. Regarding accused Khushi Ram, it is true that there is no conversation or call detail record between him and the complainant which has been placed on record by the prosecution to suggest that accused Khushi Ram was known to the complainant. It is also true that from the conversation between accused Anil Dutt Sharma and accused Khushi Ram, it cannot be concluded that the property which they were referring to was that of the complainant. However, the bare reading of the statements of complainant Joginder Singh and Panch Witness Naipal Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie reflects that when accused Anil Dutt Sharma accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant, he categorically stated that from now onwards JE Khushi Ram will not trouble the complainant regarding this property as his share is. also included in the amount received by him (accused Anil Dutt Sharma). This statement prima facie indicates the nexus and c6llusion between both the accused persons and that accused Anil Dutt Sharma was not only demanding illegal gratification for himself but also on behalf of accused JE Khushi Ram". xxx 13. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie establish that private person namely accused Anil Dutt Sharma who impersonated as JE/MCD and public servant accused Khushi Ram (JE/MCD) both in conspiracy with each other extorted illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.One Lakh from complainant Joginder Singh. 14.1n the light of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie offences under Sections 120B/384 IPC and Sections 7/13(2) of PC Act r