Pramod Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

[2025:RJ-JP:15551]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 974/2025

Pramod Sharma [parentage, age, address and workplace omitted by NyayVidhan]. ----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
(1) State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
(2) Chandraprakash [parentage, age and address omitted by NyayVidhan]. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Maharshi
For Respondent(s): Mr. N.S. Dhakad, P.P.

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the order (hcraj file 203900009742025_3.pdf, 17 pages, uploaded 21.04.2025). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-20 are the Court's own; para 10 continues in two unnumbered paragraphs, kept as printed. (2) The passages the Court quotes (Section 7A of the PC Act in para 8; Bharat Lal Saini in para 14; Babji in para 15; Vinod Kumar in para 16; Amara Krishna Rao in para 17) are printed inside quotation marks and keep their own internal numbers; each quotation is stored as one paragraph so that its numbers are not read as the Court's. (3) The extract from the ACB closure report dated 22.12.2023 that the Court quotes in Hindi at the end of para 12 (PDF pages 7-12) is not reproduced: its text layer is in a legacy Hindi font that does not convert to readable Unicode, and it contains the names, ages, castes and addresses of witnesses and other persons. NyayVidhan's short summary of it is given in square brackets at that point; read the PDF for the full extract. (4) The cause title is abridged: the parties' parentage, ages, addresses and the petitioner's workplace are omitted. (5) The order prints no 'Reportable' mark. (6) The text is otherwise as printed, including the cognizance date printed as '04.09.202' in para 1 (04.09.2020 in para 19), the trap date printed as '24.06.2024' in para 7 (the FIR followed on 25.06.2020), 'Amara Kirshna Mohan Rao' (para 4) beside 'Amara Krishna Rao' (para 17), 'submitted by the Competent Court' (para 5), 'admitted to obtain' (para 10), 'cannot be directed' (para 11), the cognizance court described as 'Special Judge Sessions Court Prevention of Corruption Act No.1' in para 19 (the case is pending before Special Judge No.4), 'if an' (para 20), and slips inside the quoted judgments ('corrupt of illegal', 'made by he public servant'). Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff line and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 7 April 2025.]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

07/04/2025

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case bearing CIS No. 12/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma pending before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases) No.4, Jaipur arising out of an FIR No. 99/2020 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra A.C.B. Jaipur, District Jaipur for offences punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, “the P.C. Act of 2018”) alongwith charge sheet No.127/2020 and so also the order of cognizance dated 04.09.202 (Annex.-3).

2. Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is not a public servant and is a businessman and he has nothing to do with the allegations made against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has induced one Chandraprakash, the then S.H.O. Police Station Udyog Nagar Police Station, Bharatpur for getting work done of the complainant by the then D.I.G. Police- Lakshman Gaur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as regards the public servant, i.e., the then DIG Police, Bharatpur no involvement of him has been found in the matter and the police after completion of the investigation has filed closure report in respect of the D.I.G. Police- Lakshman Gaur before the competent Court on 09.01.2024. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner, the police has specifically stated that there is no evidence on record as regards the connection of the accused-petitioner with the then D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur or any kind of conversation in between them. Counsel also submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner who is not a public servant, alone cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018.

4. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Bharat Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.8406/2022 decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2023.

(ii) Babji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2018 (17) SCC 732 decided by Hon’ble the Apex Court on 09.08.2018.

(iii) Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal MMO Nos. 625 and 626 of 2023 decided by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla on 25.06.2024.

(iv) Shivasharanappa Vs. The State in criminal appeal No.614/1997 decided by the High Court of Karnataka on 09.11.2001.

(v) Amara Kirshna Mohan Rao and Ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh in criminal petition No.901/2008 decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 23.09.2011.

5. Learned Public prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner and submits that the police after making a thorough investigation in the matter concluded the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed before this Court the status report of the investigation dated 04.04.2025 qua the public servant, i.e., the then D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur- Shri Lakshman Gaur and others where it has been specifically stated that after making investigation no any kind of involvement of Shri Lakshman Gaur has been found to be involved in the matter and the closure report has already been submitted by the Competent Court on 09.01.2024.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

7. The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was submitted by the complainant-Chandraprakash on 23.06.2020 stating that he is employed as Station House Officer, Udyog Nagar Police Station Bharatpur and on 17.05.2020, the petitioner demanded Rs.10,00,000/- which was to be paid to Shri Lakshman Gaur, DIG, Bharatpur in lieu of securing complainant’s promotion and to get the petitioner in good books of the D.I.G. On the basis of the said complaint, the A.C.B. organized trap proceedings and Rs.5,00,000/- is said to have been found in the Car of the petitioner on 24.06.2024 and thereafter the F.I.R. No.99/2020 was registered on 25.06.2020. The A.C.B. after making the investigation submitted the charge sheet No.127/2020 dated 19.08.2020 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 and the investigation qua Lakshman Gaur, DIG Police, Bharatpur was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The police after completion of the investigation qua Lakshman Gaur, who is a public servant, has submitted the closure report on 09.01.2024 stating that no involvement of Lakshman Gaur has been found in the matter. In the aforesaid facts, the only accused in the matter against whom charge-sheet has been submitted for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act is the petitioner who is not a public servant.

8. The offence punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 relates to an act of taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercising of personal influence. The provision of Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 is quoted as under:

“7A. Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

9. The language of the Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 clearly speaks that even a person who is not a public servant can also be made an accused for an offence punishable under Section 7A if there are allegations based on evidence of accepting or obtaining or adopting to obtain from any other person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant.

10. In order to establish the offence under Section 7A of the P.C, Act of 2018, it must be proved that (I) the accused accepted or obtain or admitted to obtain from someone; (II) for himself or for any other person; (III) any undue advantage as a motive or reward and; (IV) to induce a public servant; (V) by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly.

In the present case, initially the allegation against the accused-petitioner was of demanding and accepting the money from the complainant for getting some favour from the DIG Police, Bharatpur- Lakshman Gaur. The police after completion of the investigation, has submitted closure report as regards the Lakshman Gaur, the then D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur. Now the only accused remains in this case is the present petitioner who is not a public servant.

On bare reading of the provision of Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018, the basic ingredient is the involvement of a public servant who can be induced by a private person after receiving some illegal reward from the complainant to get some work done.

11. Since, no public servant is involved in the present case, the provision of Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 cannot be directed and thus the prosecution of the accused-petitioner alone who is not a public servant is not sustainable and the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated in law.

12. In the present case, initially the allegation against the petitioner was of demanding/obtaining money from the complainant for getting his work done by the public servant, i.e., D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur. The police after a thorough investigation has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. However, the A.C.B. considering the facts that there is no involvement of Shri Lakshman Gaur D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur in the matter, submitted the closure report. Now the fact remains that it is the only present petitioner who has been made an accused for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 who has been charge sheeted for the said offence. In the closure report dated 22.12.2023 which was submitted before the Competent Court on 09.01.2024, the A.C.B. has observed as under:

[Closure report extract in Hindi, PDF pages 7-12, not reproduced (see the notes above). NyayVidhan's summary of the extract as quoted: the ACB records that its further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC found no collusion between the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range and the petitioner, no message, chat or call about a bribe between them, and no work of the complainant pending with that officer at the time; that, in the ACB's view, the petitioner, while staying at the officer's official residence, had demanded the bribe on his own; and that, as no sufficient evidence emerged to prosecute the officer, the closure report was submitted for his part.]

13. In view of the conclusion given in the closure report, as stated above, it is very much clear that no any public servant has been found to be involved in this criminal case. In view of the specific provision of Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018, no private person can be made as an accused for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 without there being involvement or making a public servant as a co-accused. Hence, in the opinion of this Court only prosecuting a private person (not a public servant) without there being any other public servant a co-accused is not mandate of Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018 and the prosecution of such a private man alone is not sustainable.

14. In the case of Bharat Lal Saini (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para Nos. 6 and 8 has observed as under:

“6. Thus, it is evident that to attract the mischief of Section 7 of the Act, the act of demand etc. must have connection with the discharge of public duty by the public servant. If the public servant has not been assigned with the public duty as claimed by the complainant, the offence under Section 7 of the Act would not be attracted. Likewise to attract the offence under Section 7A, there must be allegation of exercise of personal influence for performance/forbearance in improper and dishonest manner of public duty by some other public servant. The expression “public duty” implies that the public servant must be enjoined with the responsibility/duty to discharge in the matter alleged by the prosecutor. 8. Thus, it is an evident fact that the petitioner was not a public servant enjoined with a public duty to perform anything in the matter as is asserted in the FIR. Therefore, unless the demand, etc. has some reasonable nexus to the dishonest and improper performance of the public duty by the public servant himself or by any other public servant, the offences under Section 7 or 7A of the P.C. Act are not made out. Once the substantive offence is not made out, the allegation of conspiracy to commit that offence does not stand, therefore, this Court holds that the ingredients of offence alleged in the FIR are not made out against the petitioner. As such, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law.”

15. In the case of Babji (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in para Nos.5 and 6 has observed as under:

“5. In order to establish the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it must be proved: (i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone; (ii) For himself or for some other person; (iii) Any gratification whatever; (iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any “public servant” to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section. 6. In order to constitute an offence under Section 8 of the Act, three things are essential. In the first place there must have been the solicitation or receipt of the gratification. Secondly, such gratification must have been asked for or paid as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favour or render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is vague for whom the appellant had demanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellant demanded and received the money is a public servant. Though the receiver of the money, like in the present case may not be a public servant, the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that the amount must have been received for inducing a public servant for doing something by that public servant in his official capacity. So far as confirmation of the seat in the Indian Airlines, there may be persons in the middle who may be a public servant or a travel agency or others. In the absence of convincing evidence to show that the appellant had received the money from PW-4,to induce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted.”

16. In the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in para Nos.19 and 23 has observed as under:

“19. Similarly, there is nothing on record suggesting of the fact that attempt, if any, was ever made by the petitioners to influence the public servant by corrupt of illegal means or by exercise of personal influence. It is none of the case of the Investigating Agency that petitioners being transporters, with a view to get the undue favour, gave bribe to co-accused Abhishek, rather precise case of the prosecution is that petitioners and co-accused in connivance with each other were doing illegal activities and in lieu of passing vehicles were demanding bribe, however, there is nothing on record to show demand, if any, made by the co-accused as well as petitioners against whom otherwise, under no circumstance, provisions of Sections 7 and 7A could be invoked. 23. In view of the above, this Court has no reason to conclude that no case much less under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act is made out against the petitioners, who are admittedly not public servants, rather transporters coupled with the fact that no complaint was ever received by investigating agency with regard to bribe, if any, demanded by the petitioners as well as co-accused Abhishek for passing of vehicles. Mere recovery of currency may not be sufficient to conclude the guilt, if any, of the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions of law, rather to bring the case within the ambit of Sections 7 and 7A of the Act, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the demand, if any, made by he public servant. In the instant case, neither there is any evidence with regard to demand nor a person who complained of demand, if any, made by the petitioner as well as co-accused.”

17. In the case of Amara Krishna Rao (supra) the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has observed as under:

“In fact, the question of prosecuting a non-public servant for any offence covered by the P.C. Act arises if there is any possibility of ascertaining basing upon the evidence to be recorded as to whether the public servant involved in connivance with the non-public servants being the concerned Commercial Tax Officer in committing the alleged offences along with the non-public servants. It all depends upon whether the prosecution can be allowed to record evidence against him with reference to the charge under the P.C. Act. ‘Abatement’ means an extinguishment of the very right of action itself or to cease, terminate or come to an end prematurely and consequently the right of the prosecution to prosecute a deceased accused in a criminal case is effectually wiped out. Unless the public servant is held to be guilty of the charge punishable under the P.C. Act on the basis of the evidence which can be recorded, there will not be any possibility to uphold the same charge against the non-public servants. Therefore, when in view of the abatement of the charge against the public servant the question of reopening it against him does not arise at all, the question of considering that charge against the non-public servants also does not arise at all.”

18. Having considered the totality of the facts of this case and more particularly the fact that apart from the present petitioner, who is a private person, no any public servant has been found to be involved in this case and so also the view taken by the various Courts as noted above, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner are vitiated in law and therefore, deem just and proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.

19. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings qua the petitioner pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption cases) No.4, Jaipur in the form of Criminal Case No.12/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act, 2018 arising out of F.I.R. No.99/2020 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, A.C.B. Jaipur, District Jaipur alongwith the charge sheet No.127/2020 and so also the order of cognizance dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Sessions Court Prevention of Corruption Act No.1 Jaipur (Raj.) are quashed and set aside with all consequential proceedings.

20. Stay application and pending application(s), if an, also stand disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J