Jharkhand High Court: B.B. Mangalmurti, J. dismissed an application for discharge of the Petitioner for allegations of demanding illegal gratifications while holding a position of Assistant Post Master.
In this instant case, the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Post Master, Head Post Office, Dhanbad and it was alleged that during the tenure, he had demanded illegal gratifications while allowing the Complainant to withdraw the amount from Savings Bank Account. Thereafter a complaint was submitted and upon further verifications, the tainted money was recovered from the petitioner’s possession and a case was lodged.
The learned counsels for the Petitioners, Jasvindar Majumdar, and Madhulika Das Gupta stated that the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Dhanbad erred while dismissing an application of the petitioner’s discharge. They put forth that the Complainant was in the habit of lodging vexatious claims against different officials and stated that the complainant had directed the petitioner to perform an illegal work and on a refusal by the petitioner to do so, the complainant had bribed. Noteworthy, the petitioner had no role in granting permission for such withdrawal.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant/C.B.I, Rajiv Nandan Prasad contended that the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Post Master and he had absolute power to allow withdrawal of money from the savings account. The also put forth that the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting the illegal gratification and it was recovered from his left side pocket hence, the court had rightfully dismissed the petitioner’s application.
The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s discharge application stating that the petitioner was caught red-handed and the tainted amount was in conscious possession of the petitioner. The High Court also took note of the fact that the number of currency notes mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum matched with the recovered amount and stated “At the time of consideration of application filed under Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required rather the court below is to see whether the allegation connecting with the accused are available or not.” Thereby, the Court on the basis of prima facie pieces of evidence gathered against the petitioner dismissed the application for discharge.[Satyadeo Prasad Verma v. Union of India, Cr. Revision No. 1470 of 2018, decided on 13-05-2019]