- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned counsel of the C.B.I.
(2.) THIS criminal revision application has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge,C.B.I., Dhanbad, whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner is rejected. Counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contractor and not a public servant, therefore, he cannot be held liable for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submits that during investigation no evidence has come regarding conspiracy against the present petitioner. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, counsel of the C.B.I., has pointed out that it has come in the charge-sheet and the impugned order that during the trap proceeding the accused, namely, Dilip Kumar Paul was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/-. It is further submitted that after acceptance of tainted money, the accused Dilip Kumar Paul handed over the same to the petitioner, namely, Amar Gupta who was present in the office- chamber of the accused at the time of transaction. It is further submitted that it has also come in the case record that the present petitioner, namely, Amar Gupta has heard the conversation between the complainant, Shri Lal Babu Singh and Dilip Kumar Paul regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. It is further submitted that the tainted money was recovered from the possession of said Amar Gupta. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved in conspiracy with the accused Dilip Kumar Paul, as there is direct allegation of recovery of the tainted amount from the possession of present petitioner.
(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions of both the parties and considering the materials on record which clearly shows that the tainted money has been recovered from the possession of Amar Gupta who was present at the time of conversation between the complainant and the accused Dilip Kumar Paul, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is rejected.;