Cops deliberately leave lacunae to benefit accused: Court

A Delhi court has observed that police officials deliberately leave lacunae in charge sheet to force courts to free the accused involved in heinous crime, thus giving a bad name to judiciary.
The court's remarks came while discharging a transport department official in a corruption case in which it held that the charge sheet was filed in a "shoddy manner" by officials of Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi government.
The court said from the way the charge sheet was filed, it appeared that the material was deliberately not scrutinised by ACB's Inspector Rakesh Kumar and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Mahender Pal.

"It is not the case that these senior officers of ACB are not aware of the nuances of the criminal law system. The charge sheet very clearly evidences that certain lacunae are deliberately and with ulterior motive left in the charge sheet and in collection of required evidence so as to make the courts helpless and force them to discharge/acquit the accused persons who are involved in a heinous crime such as corruption which is not only eroding the moral fabric of the society at large but also giving a bad name to judiciary and our country for conducting protracted trials ultimately resulting in acquittals in large number of corruption cases," special judge Hemani Malhotra said.

The court discharged Transport Department official Rajeev Kumar Arora under the Prevention of Corruption Act saying no sufficient material was found to proceed against him.
According to the prosecution, on November 5, 2012, K K Sharma, an employee of Transport Department, made a complaint to ACB that he was going to retire on November 31, 2012 and Arora was demanding Rs 50,000 bribe to clear his pension file.

Sharma alleged that Arora had demanded Rs 10,000 as first installment to be paid on November 5, 2012.
Prosecution said a trap was laid by ACB and Arora was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs 10,000 from Sharma and a case was lodged against him.

The court, while discharging the man, said the statements of complainant and a witness clearly showed that "no demand for illegal gratification" was made by Arora.
"Rather, initially, the money was refused by the accused after which the complainant himself put the money in the pocket of the accused," it said.