ORDER

T.P. Sharma. J.— By this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) petitioner has prayed for quashment of criminal proceeding pending before the Special Judge, Durg in special case No. 1/08 and quashment of the charge-sheet in crime No.12/07 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur against the petitioner.

2. As per brief facts, on the basis of copy of charge-sheet and other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner, present petitioner was working as Deputy Commandant in CISF, at the relevant time he was working at Durg. One main accused Pawan Kumar Lakhotia alias Pawan Maheshwari has tried to offer bribe of Rs.5,00,000 to complainant Shri Tarachand Sahu then Member of Parliament a Public Servant for not taking any interest/ action against Pawan Kumar Lakhotia relating to his illegal and criminal activities. As per copy of documents, Pawan Kumar Lakhotia contacted with aforesaid Public Servant by telephone and has also met personally and requested him that by his act, he is in trouble. He also requested for withdrawal of complaint, he has also requested him that he has ready to please/serve him which he denied and directed that he is not a man of aforesaid nature and he is not in need of money. Thereafter on 31.7.2007 at evening present petitioner after obtaining permission to meet the Public Servant visited his office and met with complainant, during discussion with the complainant, present petitioner canvassed for main accused Pawan Kumar Lakhotia. He also told the Public Servant that Pawan Kumar Lakhotia is good man and he will send Pawan Kumar Lakhotia to him. He also told that without managing to all persons aforesaid work could not be possible, Shri Tarachand Sahu annoyed on petitioner and directed him not to send any person to him thereafter on 2.8.2007 Pawan Kumar Lakhotia told him that he is coming with Rs. 5,00,000. Report was made to State Anti Corruption Bureau,Raipur, a trap party was arranged, Pawan Kumar Lakhotia was caught red-handed while he was offering bribe of Rs.. 5,00,000 to Shri Tarachand Sahu, a Public Servant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Durg who took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’).

3. Learned counsel for the parties are heard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that initially Shri Tarachand Sahu, Member of Parliament a Public Servant has not made any complaint against the present petitioner relating to any abatement of the offence but after laying of trap, when his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code then he has stated aforesaid statement relating to present petitioner. Present petitioner is a Member of CISF controlled by the Central Government therefore, Anti Corruption Bureau of State was not empowered to investigate the offence relating to Member of CISF controlled by Central Government.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that if the statement of Shri Tarachand Sahu. Member of Parliament and his P.A. Shri Ram Krishna Gupta is admitted in its face value then same would not be sufficient for conviction of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that at the versed, it can be treated advice or recommendation to co-accused which is not offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Purushothaman and Ors. v. State of Kerala1, in which High Court of Kerala has held that mere advice is not punishable under Section 12 of the Act.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the petition and submits that although complainant has not made any allegation against the petitioner in his initial complaint but in his statement, he has clearly made allegation that present petitioner has instigated and abated the c