Rakesh Kumar V. The Union of India Through C.B.I.

CR. REV./906/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Rakesh Kumar, who was accused in a corruption case where customs officials allegedly demanded and accepted illegal gratification for allowing the export of goods from India to Nepal. The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was initially not named in the complaint but was later found in possession of the tainted money during a police trap. The main legal contention was whether the petitioner should be discharged from the charges under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, which allows for discharge if the charges are found to be groundless. The court's decision was based on the evidence of the money recovery from the petitioner, which substantiated the charges against him.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815414 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Cr.P.C, I.P.C, Prevention of Corruption Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BIPIN SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Conspiracy; Corruption; Criminal Revision; Discharge application; Illegal gratification; Tainted money; Trap
• Section: 13(2); 7; 239; 120B; 13(1)(a)(d)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.906 of 2014 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Son of Brajendra Prasad Srivastava Resident of Mohalla- Purani Sarai, P.S. AND P.O.- Nath Nagar, District-Bhagalpur at present Qr. No.-II A-6, Old Income Tax Colony, L.C. Road, Dhanbad. .... .... Petitioner Versus The Union of India Through C.B.I. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Kumar For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha (Sc/Cbi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 05-12-2014 The present criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 30.08.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-II, Patna in Special Case No. 2 of 2013, R.C. Case No. 6A of 2013, whereby the petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected. I.A. No. 2361 of 2014 has been filed with amendment in the prayer to quash the order dated 06.11.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-II, Patna in Special Case No. 2 of 2013, R.C. Case No. 6A of 2013, whereby charges have been framed under Sections 120B of the I.P.C read with Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case is that Adish Kumar, Superintendent of Custom and Puneshwar Paswan, Inspector Patna High Court CR. REV. No.906 of 2014 (2) dt.05-12-2014 2/3 of Custom enter into a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof demanded illegal gratification of 5100/- takka, Nepali currency from the complainant Mukesh Golcha of Golcha Rice the owner of Flour Mill, Forbesgunj for allowing export of per truck maida from Land Custom Station, Jogbani to Nepal. The further case of the prosecution is that Adish Kumar accepted Rs. 25000/- from the complainant Mukesh Golcha in respect of eight trucks loaded Maida and handed over the tainted money to Puneshwar Paswan being Inspector of Custom. When the trap was laid the money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not named in the complaint made by the complainant Mukesh Golcha. The petitioner was not involved in any conspiracy and he only followed the direction of his superior officer. Hence, at best he ought to have been made a witness and not an accused. This is not in dispute that when the trap was laid, the alleged money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is not inclined to interfere, as under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, an accused can be discharged only when the Court, after considering the materials submitted under Section 173 of the I.P.C and after hearing counsels for the parties, comes to the conclusion that the charges are found to be groundless. In Patna High Court CR. REV. No.906 of 2014 (2) dt.05-12-2014 3/3 the instant case the trap team seized the money from the possession of the petitioner, hence the charge can not be treated to be groundless. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly the application is dismissed. Shageer/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) U T "