D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) INSTANT criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 of 2001, corresponding to Special Case No. 7 of 2001 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge against the alleged offence under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was dismissed.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in short was that the informant Hardev Bhagat submitted a written complaint on 24.3.2001 before the vigilance police (State of Jharkhand) stating therein that he had been constructing a PCC Road at Village -Charki on the instruction of B.D.O., Mandar and it was completed. Though he had received sum of Rs. 1,42,500/ - towards the work done but balance amount to the tune of Rs. 17,000/ - was due for payment. Informant alleged that one Rameshwar Singh Junior Engineer had already obtained Rs. 11,000/ - illegally from him and was further demanding Rs. 13,000/ - towards the last payment of Rs. 17,000/ -. It was further alleged therein that the petitioner Assistant Engineer used to accept illegal money through the Junior Engineer Rameshwar Singh. After verifying the allegation and having been found the same to be true, a trap was laid by the team of the State Vigilance Department and the co -accused Rameshwar Singh Junior Engineer, Mandar Block, Ranchi was trapped accepting the bribe amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/ - which was recovered from his possession in presence of the witnesses and memorandum of seizure was prepared. Upon complain and seizure whereof Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 of 2001 was instituted for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner Braj Kishore Sharma as also against the Junior Engineer Rameshwar Singh from whose possession G.C. notes were recovered in presence of the witnesses alleged to be tendered by the informant -contractor. The case was investigated and the Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet against the named accused persons, including the petitioner Assistant Engineer for the alleged offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P.P.N. Roy initiating his argument submitted that in the written report submitted on behalf of the informant it was nowhere alleged that the petitioner Assistant Engineer had demanded money or that he was Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 trapped accepting bribe from the. informant except the wild allegation based upon suspicion that he might be receiving his share through the Junior Engineer. As a matter of fact there was no reason or occasion for the petitioner to demand money from the contractor because no work was pending before him at the relevant time and if at all any liability was made, it was only against the Junior Engineer against whom there was allegation that he found accepting bribe and such amount was recovered from his person and possession in presence of the witnesses. Petitioner has been implicated in the instant case merely on suspicion without any legal evidence on the record and even no nexus could be established between the petitioner and the co -accused Junior Engineer having hands in gloves for the alleged transaction between the informant and the Junior Engineer. Petitjoner's role was confined to verify the estimate of work prepared by the Junior Engineer who had forwarded the estimate of the alleged work in the instant case within four days and therefore, he had no interest at all against the balance amount which was due to the informant. Measurement book was produced before him for verification on 14.10.2000 and having been satisfied, he had returned the measurement book on the same day, therefore, question of any demand or that he had earlier received any part of certain amount through the Junior Engineer did not arise.
(3.) THE learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Roy pointed out that a joint petition was filed by the petitioner Assistant Engineer and the co -accused Rameshwar Singh, Junior Engineer for their discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that none of the witnesses in course of investigation had supported or corroborated the prosecution version as presented by the informant, but the same was dismissed in a mechanical manner as there was no material against the petitioner to proceed against him.;