- (1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 31.7.2009, passed by Shri P. C. Agrawal, learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.3(A)/04D registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by which the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in short was that the complainant Karu Das had lodged a complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad on 13.3.2004 narrating that he was an employee in Ramkanali colliery as miner loader, who had met with an accident while on duty in the colliery in the month of June, 2002 which caused fracture injury on his left hand and injury on his left shoulder. For his specialized treatment, he was referred to Central Hospital, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad where he was put under treatment of the petitioner Dr. Shri Kant Gupta. In the month of December, 2003, it was alleged that the petitioner Dr. Shri Kant Gupta demanded a sum of Rs.5000/ -as illegal gratification for referring his name to the medical board for issuance of permanent disability in his favour for the fracture in left hand injuries sustained by him, consequently, he could be assigned light duty. The management issued a letter on 56th March, 2004 for examination of the complainant Karu Das by the medical board of Central Hospital, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad where he was called upon to appear on 13.3.2004. Thereafter, the complainant visited, as per instruction, to the quarter of the petitioner at 7:00 a.m. on 13.3.2004 where it was alleged that he demanded Rs.5000/ -to which the complainant assured to make over after arranging the money. He was then asked by the petitioner to meet him in the afternoon at his quarter with the money. As the complainant was not willing to gratify Dr. Shri Kant Gupta, he went to the C.B.I. office and registered his complaint against the petitioner which was verified by one officer of the C.B.I. and having been satisfied that the allegation was factually correct, F.I.R. was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, a trap was laid against the petitioner by the officers of the C.B.I. and pre trap process was demonstrated before the witnesses and the amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/ -, which was produced by the complainant Karu Das was returned to him after treatment with phenolphthalein powder, with specific instruction to Karu Das to deliver the amount only when demanded by Dr. Shri Kant Gupta. Complainant went there and the petitioner Dr. Shri Kant Gupta was apprehended by the team of C.B.I. in presence of independent witnesses while he illegally accepted the tainted money from the complainant. The post trap formalities were undertaken with the seizure memo of Rs.5000/allegedly recovered from the right hand side pocket of the trousers of the petitioner. The solution in which the hands of the accused was dipped, had turned into pink colour was also collected and sealed in separate bottles in presence of the witnesses. Petitioner Dr. Shri Kant Gupta was arrested and after investigation C.B. I. submitted charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him with the sanction order. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that at the relevant time of alleged occurrence, petitioner was posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer as well as Head of Department of Orthopedics at the Central Hospital, Dhanbad and that he was not the senior most Doctor in the medical board duly empowered/authorized to issue certificate regarding disability of a miner.
(3.) ADVANCING his argument, Mr. Kashyap, further submitted that this fact was known to the complainant from before that the petitioner was not a Senior Doctor in the medical board who may prevail over the other members by influencing for issuance of disablement certificate to the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion or reason either for demand of gratification by the petitioner or for payment of same by the complainant for showing any kind of favour. Even the complainant had not applied in writing before the competent authority of the B.C.C.L. for monetary compensation as against his partial or permanent disablement. On the other hand, petitioner had treated the complainant by plastering his fracture injury for his speedy recovery as an orthopedic surgeon as a part of his duty. ;