RAJESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application was initially filed for quashing of the FIR of Vigilance P.S. case no. 4 of 2011 instituted under Section 7/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, when upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken against the petitioner by the then Special Judge, Vigilance, vide its order dated 29.3.2011. The said order was also challenged. Mr. P.P.N. Rai, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the prosecution that Tarun Kar had asked for illegal gratification from the complainant. The complainant gave the illegal gratification to Tarun Kar, who accepted it and then it is said that he passed on the tainted money to this petitioner from whom it was recovered but that would not make out a case for prosecution under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act so far this petitioner is concerned as the petitioner can never be said to have accepted the bribe money on behalf of the Tarun Kar, rather as per the statement made by Tarun Kar he had passed on the money to this petitioner for hiding it and that the petitioner had never been alleged to have had demanded money from the complainant and in that event, mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to hold a person guilty as demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, 2009 15 SCC 200 and also in a case of C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P. TH. I.P., 2010 8 Supreme 59.

(3.) Thus, it was submitted that in absence of any material of demand of illegal gratification by this petitioner from the complainant, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.