CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RAM PRAKASH SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
RAM PRAKASH SHARMA
Click here to view full judgement.
SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. -
(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
(2.) CONTROVERSY involved in this revision is that the Special Judge (CBI), Uttaranchal, Dehradun vide the impugned order dated 29.3.2005 discharged the accused Ram Prakash Sharma from the offence of Section 409 IPC and found the case for levelling the charges only for the offences under Section 168 IPC read with Section 13(2)/13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the chargesheet was submitted by the CBI against Ram Prakash Sharma for all those offences.
Now, the CBI has agitated in this revision that the learned Special Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order of discharge from the offence of Section 409 IPC.
I have gone through the impugned order as well as the contents of the chargesheet. Certainly, the learned Special Judge (CBI) was not correct in holding that after obtaining of the bills in the name of the society and not entering the same into any register of the society does not ipso facto shows that the accused has committed any offence of criminal breach of trust, while the chargesheet entails 26 bills of different worth which shows that these were issued in favour of different parties. But these bills were not accounted in the concerned register. The amount received by him was not deposited in the bank account of the society. So, apparently, it was criminal breach of trust of the money, which was entrusted to him by different purchasers which he was bound to deposit in the bank account of the society. The learned trial court was certainly misconceived in the interpretation of Section 168 IPC because that envisages that if a Government Servant carries any trade or profession without being legally bound as such public servant to do so, then it is covered by Section 168 IPC.
(3.) ACCUSED Ram Prakash Sharma was a public servant and he was not doing this trade illegally. He was engaged under the rules and bylaws of the society for the benefit of its members, all of whom were the public servants of the railways. Section 168 IPC envisages in a different context and that comes into play only when a public servant not being authorized so, engages himself in a trade for his personal gains otherwise than his official duties.
In the instant controversy, Ram Prakash Sharma was deputed as Secretary of society to run its business and the members of the society were the beneficiaries of the same. So, in fact, offence of Section 168 IPC is not attracted at all. Rather, it is a case of Section 409 IPC.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.