JAIRAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who happens to be the Chief Fire Officer, has sought the quashing of FIR No. 132/05, registered at Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences under Ss. 7, 13(l)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 9-5-2003, the complainant-Shivraj Singh, the respondent No. 2, lodged a complaint with the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Department), Jaipur Rural, wherein he alleged that he and his cousin brother, Ranjeet Singh had brought a truck in partnership. On 10-1-2002 when the truck was going from Joriwas to Mahapura, carrying hay, suddenly it caught fire and was burnt. On 11-1-2002, his cousin brother, Ranjeet Singh, submitted an application before the Cheif Fire Officer that a certificate about the burning of the truck may be given to him. However, till date the said certificate was not issued by the Chief Fire Officer. He further alleged that on 25-4-2003 his cousin brother again submitted an application for seeking the said certificate. On 26-4-2003, he met with the petitioner who told him that in case he were paid Rs. 5.000/- as illegal gratification for the said certificate, he would issue the said certificate. The petitioner further directed him to contact one Sanjay Sharma who would ensure that the certificate is prepared. According to the complainant, again he met the petitioner who again demanded the illegal gratification. Allegedly, the petitioner told the complainant that unless the said amount is paid, the said certificate would not be issued. When he contacted Sanjay Sharma and told him that he had already paid the said amount on an earlier occasion, Sanjay Sharma informed him that, that amount was paid to the previous Chief Fire Officer. Therefore, he was required to again pay the said amount. Since the complainant had already paid the amount on an earlier occasion, this time he decided that he wanted to get the Chief Fire Officer and Sanjay Sharma caught red handed while accepting the bribe. Therefore, he requested the Anti-Corruption Bureau to lay the trap for the corrupt officers. On the basis of this application, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid the trap. On 14-5-2003 the complainant informed the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau that this morning Sanjay Sharma met him and told him to come to the office and bring Rs. 4,000/- for him. Upon this information, the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid the trap. When the decoy witness gave the signal, the officers entered the office where the complainant identified Sanjay Sharma and told the officers that Sanjay Sharma had taken the said Rs. 4.000/- and had kept it under the files of the table of the Chief Fire Officer. When the officers introduced themselves to Sanjay Sharma and the petitioner, the two were taken aback. The fingers of both the petitioner and Sanjay Sharma were washed and the water turned pinkish. The said mixture was sealed then and there. Subsequently, a formal FIR was chalked out on 17-5-2003 for offences under Ss. 7, 13(l)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S. 120-B, IPC against the petitioner and Sanjay Sharma. Initially the petitioner challenged the FIR by filing a writ petition before this Court, registered as SBCWP No 6329/04. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the present petition has has filed before us.

(3.) Mr. P.C. Bhandari, the learned counsel for th( petitioner, has vehemently argued that here is no material on record to show that any money was demanded by the petitioner, ln fact, the petitioner had merely directed the complainant to contact Sanjay Sharma arid it is Sanjay Sharma who had demanded the money. Hence, for the criminal act of Sanjay Sharma, the petitioner cannot be held liable. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had merely told the complainant to deposit the required fees of Rs. 10/- and had directed Sanjay Sharma to issue the necessary certificate. The learned counsel has further argued that no office under S.7 or under S. 13(l)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. As far as offence under S. 120-B, IPC is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the pel itioner and Sanjay Sharma had entered into any criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the FIR should be quashed.