VIJAY KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 352 dtd. 20/12/2028 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Police Station for offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) As per FIR, the petitioner was Assistant Drug Controller on the date of incident. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs.50,000.00 from complainant Kuldeep Singh for renewal of his expired drug licence. Kuldeep Singh made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 11/12/2019. The Anti Corruption Bureau confidentially verified the allegation of Kuldeep Singh on 17/12/2018. Conversation between the petitioner and Kuldeep was taken on record and the authorities decided to have a trap of the petitioner. Different notes of Rs.500.00 denomination total Rs.20,000.00 were put under Sodium Carbonate and other chemicals and the petitioner was caught while accepting bribe on 19/12/2018. After completion of investigation, the authorities obtained sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said sanction order dtd. 23/6/2021 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Manish Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that last paragraph of the sanction order would reveal that no work of the complainant was directly pending before the petitioner. There is no evidence of direct demand of 50,000/- by the petitioner. However, since the trap money was recovered from the petitioner and petitioner had no reasonable explanation for that, therefore, prima facie, offence was made out and accordingly, sanction to prosecute was accorded. Learned Counsel on the basis of aforesaid statement in the sanction order, contends that in spite of no evidence of demand and no work of the complainant directly pending with the petitioner, sanction to prosecute has been granted without application of mind on mere conjunctures and surmises. Mere recovery would not attract the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.