SAURABH GOLYA Vs. LOKAYUKTA SANGATHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 are invoked for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No. 139/16 registered at Police Station Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Division Gwalior (M.P.) alleging offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act" for brevity) and the consequential prosecution which is pending in shape of charge-sheet before the Special Judge [Prevention of Corruption Act], Ashok Nagar (M.P.) at Case No. 1/2018.

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution story hinges upon the statements of various prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 namely, Rajendra Singh, constable, Mahesh Baghel, constable, Kamlesh Chandra Goyal, Panch Witness, Vichar Singh Bijauliya, Panch Witness, Sanat Kumar Singhai, the complainant, Ashok Singhai brother of the complainant and Piyush Singhai, nephew of the complainant who have unanimously stated that on dipping of the fingers of petitioner/accused in the phenolphthalein solution, the solution which was earlier transparent did not turn pink. It is further submitted that the prosecution is also vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind by the competent authority while issuing the order of sanction for prosecution dated 20.12.2017 inasmuch as lacuna in the prosecution story of the solution not turning pink was ignored, the FSL report which was exculpatory in nature was ignored and therefore no independent application of mind took place. 3. 1. It is further submitted that initially, complaint made by Sanat Kumar Singhai was to the effect that bribe was sought by the petitioner for earmarking the place for drilling and installation of hand-pumps whereas the prosecution story which was presented before the learned Trial Judge alleged demand of bribe was for clearing of the bills for installation of hand-pumps. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I., 2017 Cri.L.J. 4980 (Para 71), Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala and another, (2007) 14 SCC 783 (Para 8), Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186 (Para 25 to 27), Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295 (Para 21 to 22).