Ramesh Kumar Mafeshwari v. CBI

1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order on charge dated 8th June, 20II and the frarning of charge dated 19th July, 20II for offence punishablc under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC') Act.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the provisions of Section 12 of the PC Act are not atlracted as no public servant is involved. w.P.(crrl) l2o8/20rr 2011:DHC:16966 1,/ Further the Complainant has died and the FIR not being a substantive evidence, no trial can proceed against the Petitioner. Thus the pendency of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of Court. There is no iota of evidence that the Petitioner is a conspirator. The only role assigned to the Petitioner is that the Petitioner took the co-accused Ripun Bora to the Jukaso Inn however, he remained outside. Ihe Petitioner had never called the Complainant and had no interaction with him. The Petitioner was known to Ripun Bora and as and when he came to Delhi the Petitioner would provide hirn the services like car etc. The Petitioner has not even been named in the FIR. Frorn the evidence on record no abatement much less any conspiracy is made out against the Petitioner.

3. Reliance is placecl on Shri Ram vs. State of U.P', 1975 Cri.L.J. 240 to contend that to consiitute an offence of abatetnent it must be sure that the abettor had "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been cornmitted without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 IPC. It is thus stated that the charge framed against the Petitioner is without any basis and warrants interference by this Court. w.P.(cRL) r208t20rr

4. The prosecution case in brief is that Shri A.B. Gupta, Dy. S.P., CBI Kolkata, the Cornplainant in the abovementioned case was investigating a murder case in which there were allegations of the involvement of accused Ripun Bora when he was a Minister in the Government of State of Assam. It is alleged that during April-May, 2008 all the accused persons entered into crirninal conspiracy to offer bribe to the Complainant Shri A.B. Gupta for getting the name of Ripun Bora cleared from the said case. It is alleged that on l6'h May, 2008 the co-accused Ripun Bora and Mukul Pathak travelled from Guwahati to New Delhi. At New Delhi the Petitioner arransed for their accommodation. Thereafter all the three went to the hotel Jukaso Inn and met Shri A.B. Gupta in Room No. 103 when the Petitioner waited at the reception of the hotel. The co-accused Ripun Bora and Mukul Pathak discussed with the Complainant and offered a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs which was enhanced to Rs. 17 lakhs at the instance of the co-accused Mukul Pathak. The matter was pursued further by the co-accused Mukul Pathak and finally again Ripun Bora and Mukul Pathak travelled from Guwahati to Delhi on 2th June,2008. All the three accused again went to hotel Jukaso Inn in Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on 3'd June, 2008. The Petitioner took out an orange colour bag from the car and handed it over to the co-accused w.P.(cRL) 1208t20rr Ripun Bora who went inside the hotel. The Petitioner even told his driver that if there was sourething suspicious he should flee from there. Inside the hotel accused Ripun Bora rushed to the Room No. 213 and threw the orange colour bag on the floor of the room and rushed back as he had becorne suspicious. In fact CBI had laid a trap and was tapping the telephonic conversation of the accused persons with the Complainant Shri A.B. Gupta and had also installed audio video recorder cum transmitter in Room No.213 and from the omnge colour bag Rs. 10 lakhs were recovered.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner firstly is that he cannot be said to be an abettor because he like any other friend just facilitated the rnain accused in transporting.

6. In State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini and others, 1999 (5) SCC 253 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if frorr the fact meeting of minds is evident and a person having knowledge tacitly goes along with the co-accused he would be treated as a co-conspirator. In the present case it is evident from the fact that the Petitioner told his driver to flee away in case of any suspicion thus showing that the Petitioner was aware of the entire conspiracy. The Petitioner not only provided the logistic support but also provided the bag containing cash to the co-accused IUpun w.P.(cRL) r208t20rr t a Bora who took it to the roorl where the Complainant was sitting. Thus it can not be said that the Petitioner had no role to play in the conspiracy.

7. As regards the contention that the main Complainant has died, it may be noted that in the present case there is evidence of video, audio tapcs rccorded. Further the statement of independent witnesses is also there and at this stage it carurot be said that in the absence of Complainant the prosecution will not be able to prove its case against the Petitioner.

8. I do not find any abuse of the process of court or gross illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference by this trial coutl. Petition is dismissed. ll',r"W#."f9- /MUKTA GUPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 01. 2011 / - tvn' l