1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the FIR being CR-I No.14 of 2014 registered with the ACB Police Station, Rajkot city, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under :

The applicant is a public servant serving as the Deputy Engineer, Class-II. First in point of time, an FIR came to be registered against the applicant herein bearing CR-I No.3 of 2014 before the Rajkot ACB Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. This FIR got registered on 2nd May 2014. While the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988, was being investigated, a search was carried out at the residential house of the applicant. In the course of the search, the investigating agency recovered and seized materials in the form of policy certificates, cash and jewellery. This, ultimately, led to filing of an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988, which is the subject matter of this petition.

3. The FIR in question is sought to be quashed principally on the ground that the same is a second FIR and there is an element of sameness and, therefore, not maintainable.

4. The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that during the course of the investigation of the FIR registered first in point of time if something is recovered in the form of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, then the second FIR for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988, could not have been filed. To put it in other words, the contention is that Section 13(1)(e) could have been added in the first FIR itself.

5. Mr.Dagli, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, placed strong reliance in support of his submissions on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. C.B.I. and another, (2013)6 SCC 348. Mr.Dagli also placed reliance on one another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001)6 SCC 181.

6. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that there being merits in this application, the same be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

7. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr.D.M.Devnani, the learned APP appearing for the State. Mr.Devnani invited my attention to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 1988. He submits that the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988, is distinct than the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988. The learned APP further submitted that as both the offences are distinct and different, those cannot be clubbed and tried together. The learned APP submitted that in a case involving Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988, what is necessary is as to whether keeping in view the period in question, commonly known as the check period, the public servant has acquired wealth which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has nothing to do with an individual case of bribery, i.e. demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It has nothing to do with a series of acts culminated into an offence. Besides the same, according to the learned APP, in a case under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988, once the ingredients of the offence are established by the prosecution, the burden of proof shifts on the accused persons to account for a pecuniary resources and the properties found in his possession in the relevant check period. However, in cases where the public servant is alleged to have taken illegal gratification, the burden of proof under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act,