JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. - This Revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 02.08.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, framing charge against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("hereinafter referred as PC Act, 1988?).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant General V.K. Singh, the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS) vide his letters dated 30.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 alleged that during a meeting in his office on 22.09.2010, the 2 petitioner had offered him a bribe of Rs. 14 Crore on behalf of one Mr. Ravi Rishi to clear the file for procurement of 1676 HMVs (High Mobility Vehicles) including Tatra vehicles by the first week of October, 2010.

3. Based on the complaints so received, preliminary inquiry being AC-1 2012 A 0003 dated 11.04.2012 came to be registered which was converted into FIR No. RC AC1 2012A0014/CBI/AC-1 dated 19.10.2012 under Section 12 of PC Act, 1988.

4. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet bearing No. 04/2014 was filed by the CBI before the competent court. The Special Judge Patiala House took cognizance of the offence on 28.08.2014. The learned Special Judge, CBI vide impugned order dated 02.08.2019, framed charges under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. It is stated at the Bar that out of 21 witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is in progress.

5. Mr. Siddharth Luthra & Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order on framing of charge is contrary to the settled legal position, inasmuch as no offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 is made out. According to them, keeping in view the language of Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 the essential ingredients i.e., demand for the purpose of Sections 7 & 11 of the PC Act, 1988 is necessary and the said ingredient is missing in the instant case. According to them, no demand was ever made and the alleged offer was at best a voluntary act of the petitioner. They also submit that there is an unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and lodging of the FIR. The incident is of 22.09.2010, but the complaint was made on 30.03.2012 and then on 10.04.2012. Based on the same, a preliminary inquiry was lodged on 3 11.04.2012. They also submit that no audio/video recording of the alleged conversation between the complainant and the petitioner was produced, whereas, the complainant in his statement dated 12.12.2013 claimed that he had recorded the alleged conversation which he had allegedly handed over to the CBI.

6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Luthra placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the matters of Ashok Argal v. State 1 & Rewati Raman Singh v. State 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4788 and Jatinder Pal Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2012 (127) DRJ 176=2011 SCC OnLine Del 5407. He also relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the matter of N.A. Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online Del 135 : 2022 (287) DLT 334, decision of the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Ganesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., MANU/KE/0951/2015:2015 SCC OnLine Ker 14979 and the decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/2028/2019.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Special Judge has wrongly relied on the decision in the matter of R.P. Malik v. State 2013 SCC onLine Del 2096 . The said decision is per incurium in view of overlooking earlier binding precedent of this Court in the matter of Rewati Raman Singh (Supra) & Ashok Argal (Supra).

8. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed an error while placing reliance on Section 116 of the IPC. According to him the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 is a disti