Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi for applicant, learned Addl. P.P. Ms. V. S.Mhaispurkar for State-Respondent no.1 and learned Counsel Mr. Rajesh Desai for CBI – Respondent no.2.

2. The applicant is one of the accused in Special Case no.52 of 2009 pending in the Court of Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption of Act, Mumbai. Chargesheet has been filed by Central Bureau of Investigation after investigation of FIR no.RC/BA1/2009/A0013. In all there are two accused including the applicant. The applicant has been cited as accused no.2. The other accused by name Sunil Nandlal Shah has been cited as accused no.3. One Income Tax Inspector by name Rahul Kumar was originally cited as accused no.1 when the FIR was registered. However, chargesheet has been filed against the applicant and Accused no.3 Sunil Shah.

3. The allegations against the applicant are based on the complaint made by Smt. Balwant Kaur – resident of Andheri (West), Mumbai. The said Smt. Balwant Kaur had a residential house at Mohali, Chandigarh also. It is stated by her in the complaint that while she was in Chandigarh in the month of November, 2008, she received a call from one Mr. Gaikwad who introduced himself as Income Tax officer and told the complainant that there was a summons against her. The applicant who was looking after the Income Tax matters of the complainant was informed. It is alleged that the applicant after a few days had spoken to the complainant and told her that the matter was serious and that the complainant had to visit Mumbai. The complainant, therefore, reached Mumbai on 26.11.2009 and met the applicant at his residence. She was informed by the applicant that he is following the matter and he will let the complainant know about developments in the case.

4. It is further alleged that the applicant had visited house of the complainant in the month of February and told her that her work would be done and that she would have to pay Rs.10 lakhs by way of bribe. The complainant was shocked to hear that she was required to pay bribe of Rs.10 lakhs. The applicant, however, told her that she might take some time to consider the situation and that the applicant would visit her again. After a few days, during a similar visit, the applicant had allegedly told the complainant that the amount of bribe could be reduced by Rs.5 lakhs and that the complainant would have to pay Rs.1 lakh to the applicant by way of service charges. She was also informed that the co-accused Sunil Shah was very closed to the Income Tax Officer and that he would be able to resolve the whole issue. Since the complainant did not want to pay bribe amount, she had given information to CBI and CBI had made arrangement for recording of talks between the complainant and the applicant during next few visits. The FIR was registered on 26.2.2009 itself when the matter was reported to CBI by the complainant in writing.

5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicant and the other accused by name Sunil Shah. Both of them had made applications for discharge before the Trial Court independently. Both the applications were rejected. Accused Sunil Shah moved this Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.) for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. By order dated 4.10.2012 this Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.) directed that accused Sunil Shah be discharged of the offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. Learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court on the application of Mr. Sunil Shah, the present applicant deserves to be discharged as the allegations against both of them are more or less same. It was further submitted that in fact the allegations against the accused – Sunil Shah were grievous as compared to the allegations against the present applicant. Learned Counsel Mr. Saraogi further submitted that a plain reading of complai