In a matter filed before the Orissa High Court seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) dated 29-08-2022, charge sheet dated 27-10-2022, and final charge sheet dated 30-12-2022 in a case pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhenkanal, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi dismissed the petition.
The complainant, claiming to be engaged in coal transportation, alleged that the petitioner demanded monthly payments for coal transportation trucks to pass without obstruction. It was also alleged that the petitioner threatened to “court challan” the vehicles and send the complainant to jail if the monthly payment was not made. The vigilance authorities organized a trap operation where the petitioner’s hand wash test result allegedly turned pink, and tainted cash was recovered in a sealed envelope. The present petition was filed after the petitioner obtained materials from the department and from transport authorities through RTI.
The petitioner contended that the trap case was a false, engineered, and mala fide proceeding set up by persons connected with mining activities. He placed reliance on vehicle records obtained through RTI showing that the trucks were not roadworthy, not in operation, not under the complainant’s effective control or wrongly described in the prosecution papers. The petitioner argued that the prosecution version was fundamentally unreliable due to inconsistencies in truck registration numbers and the lack of videography during the trap. He invoked legal precedents stating that proof of demand and acceptance was indispensable and that mere recovery was insufficient.
The Court noted that the present challenge was founded on the plea that after this Court’s earlier order, the petitioner had procured departmental materials through RTI which could expose the vigilance trap case as false and engineered. Referring to G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. 2000 2 SCC 636, the Court stated that when an earlier order has already relegated the accused to the charge stage, the High Court must exercise evident restraint and should not permit Section 482 to become a surrogate for a discharge proceeding.
Further, referring to Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor 2013 3 SCC 330, the Court stated that the law leaves open a single narrow window through which the accused’s own material may be examined, provided the material is sound, reasonable, indubitable, and of sterling and impeccable quality. After perusing Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court stated that proof of demand and acceptance is central to a conviction under the said provision.
The Court stated that at the present stage it was not to decide whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed but only whether the prosecution materials, taken as they stand, disclose the offence and justify the accused being put to trial. It was said that doubt and certainty do not occupy the same place in this jurisdiction and that material that unsettles the prosecution is not the same as material that destroys it. The Court stated that a court asked to quash must satisfy itself that it confronts material that can foreclose a trial, and not a promising foundation for cross-examination dressed in the language of impossibility.
Further, the Court said that the documents relied on by the petitioner did not satisfy the required threshold since even if the alleged mismatches in registration marks are taken at face value, they did not lead to the indubitable conclusion that the vigilance case was impossible or fabricated. It was stated that material of this kind may bruise the prosecution, but does not result in a breakdown. It was stated that the petitioner’s allegations that the tainted money was recovered from the floor rather than his hand, that the trap was not video recorded, the pre-trap verification was incomplete, etc. may point to a fabricated case but may also turn out to be clerical errors, which could only be answered after the witnesses are examined and tested in cross-examination. The Court stated that at the pre-trial stage, the accused cannot seek adjudication of his defence material or invite the Court to conduct a mini-trial.
The Court said that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 must be exercised with great caution, particularly in a trap case where the prosecution already alleges demand, acceptance, positive hand-wash test result, and recovery after a pre-arranged signal. It was stated that where the materials disclose a cognizable offence, restraint is not caution but justice. The Court held that the FIR and the materials collected disclosed a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that the materials procured by the petitioner did not have the character to completely displace the prosecution at the threshold. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
ALSO READ: Questioning Wife’s Fidelity, Isolating Her in Matrimonial Home Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras HC
