@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.@mdashThis application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 3 of 2013 (Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 106 of 2013) including the order dated 15.6.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 166 , 218 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 8 , 9 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant Block Development Officer, Ramgarh was informed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh telephonically that some persons who are in police uniform has stopped some trucks and have been extorting money from the driver. On getting such information, Block Development Officer came to NH-33 at Bijuliya Bridge along with In-charge Agriculture Officer, Ramgarh and others and found a truck bearing registration No. HP-12D-5661 standing over the road. Across the road, a Tata Sumo Gold was also standing. There they found five persons who were in police uniform surrounding the truck. Those five persons who were in police uniform on being asked disclosed their names but they did not disclose as to under what authority, they were there in police uniform but simply told them that they are with RTO Inspector and they at his instance, have intercepted the vehicles. Thereafter Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh and others came to the vehicle near Tata Sumo Gold where they found four persons, one of them told his name as Kamal Kishore, Enforcement Inspector (petitioner) Two persons who were inside the car were also in police uniform who disclosed their names as Phuleshwar Malakar and Albert Ekka. They disclosed that they are constable attached with the Transport Department. One person the driver of the said truck bearing No. HP-12D-5661, who was there, told them that they got his truck stopped and asked for document of the vehicle and when it was given, it was kept by them and they asked for Rs. 5000/- on the plea that the vehicle is overloaded. He, however, agreed to give a sum of Rs. 3500/-. Meanwhile, Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarh Police Station, Sub-divisional Police Officer and Sub-divisional Officer, Ramgarh also reached over there. In their presence, search was made of all the eight persons, from whose possession document relating to 10 trucks were seized. They also seized money receipts bearing signature of Enforcement Inspector but neither the vehicle number nor the section of M.V. Act has been mentioned and in some of them, though the amount of fine and section of the Act had been mentioned but vehicle number had not been mentioned. That apart, from the possession of all those eight persons money were also recovered which were seized. From the possession of this petitioner, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and odd were recovered and were seized.
3. On such fact a case was lodged with the allegation that the petitioner with the help of five persons who were in police uniform were extorting money from the truck driver for their own benefits. After institution of the case, it was investigated upon during which statement of the persons were recorded and the charge sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence as aforesaid has been taken which is under challenge.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be an Enforcement Inspector, who in discharge of his duty intercepted the trucks which were overloaded and in that event, he did demand relevant document to check ladden in capacity and over height of the vehicle and at that point of time, Enforcement Officer reached over there and seized the document and also the money which have been collected as fine but the case was lodged with the allegation that the petitioner and his associates had extorted the money from the truck drivers but none of the drivers had made any statement that they had given money as illegal gratification rather all have said that money which were given to the petitioner, it was by way of fine and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence.
5. Further it was submitted that the allegation was also there that when fine was charged, the drivers expressed their inability to pay such amount of fine and therefore, upon negotiation the amount of fine was reduced which power the petitioner does have under the circular dated 9.12.2000.
6. Further it was submitted that under the provision of the M.V. Act, the petitioner being Enforcement Inspector does have every power to detain, seize, make arrest, levy fine, impose tax against the offending vehicle and thereby if the petitioner did inspect vehicles, which were overloaded and got it detained and seized the documents and imposed fine, he cannot be said to have committed any offence rather whatever has been alleged to have been done, that has been done under the provision of the M.V. Act and thereby it is absolutely wrong to allege against the petitioner to have committed offence under which cognizance has been taken.
7. Further it was submitted that nothing is there in the entire investigation to establish that the money was collected by way of extortion, rather all the witnesses have said that it was taken as fine and thereby no material was there before the court for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and if no sufficient material was there to issue summon against the petitioner after taking cognizance, the order taking cognizance is bad in view of the decision rendered in a case of
8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring to the statement recorded in the case diary submits that the circumstances which are appearing in this case are as such which go to suggest that the petitioner had collected the money from the truck drivers by way of extortion and not by levying fine.
9. In this regard learned counsel has referred to an affidavit filed by some of the truck drivers namely, Madhu Gujjar, Arjun Prasad etc. who have stated that the petitioner did ask money on the plea that the truck is overloaded and they kept the documents of the vehicle with them and provided Mobile Number so that he may inform when he will arrange the money.
10. Further it was submitted that five persons who were found along with this petitioner were never an employee of Transport Department, rather they were the private persons, still they were in police uniform and were assisting the petitioner in intercepting the vehicle and to collect money from the driver and when personal search was made of them, money was recovered from each of them.
11. Further it was pointed out that money receipt which were recovered were found to have been signed by the Inspector but in some of the receipts neither the vehicle number nor the amount of fine nor the Section of the M.V. Act were mentioned and in some of them, though amount of fine and the Section of the M.V. Act were there but did not contain the vehicle number.
12. Thus, under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner at this stage cannot be accepted that the petitioner had collected the money by way of fine.
13. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record including the case diary, I may agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the State. It be stated that the petitioner had made out a case that whatever money was found in possession of either this petitioner or other persons who were along with the petitioner at the spot, those money had been collected as fine which the petitioner is empowered to levy. But at the same time, some circumstances which have been highlighted on behalf of the State such as some private persons being in police uniform assisting the petitioner and that document relating to the vehicles were seized without giving seizure list and that some of the money receipts though were signed but were unfilled and also the statement made by some of the persons in their affidavits, one can say that it is otherwise then the case made out by the petitioner showing culpability on the part of the petitioner.
14. Thus, the facts pleaded by the petitioner and the circumstances placed on behalf of the State can be thrashed out only during trial and under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance. Hence, this application stands dismissed. Before parting with this order, it be stated that any observation made for the purpose of disposal of this case shall not be prejudicial to the case of the petitioner.
