A P Thaker, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-13 of 2009 registered with Agathala Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 384 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7, 13(1)D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the order dated 20.05.2015 passed below application Exhibit 3 in Special (A.C.B.) No.55 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Palanpur, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the application of the applicant for discharging him from the offence as alleged.

2. The applicant herein has contended that the alleged offence has been registered against him and charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Special Judge wherein it was registered as Special Case (A.C.B.) No.55 of 2012. He has contended that he has filed discharge application at Exhibit 3, which came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge, Palanpur. According to him, by incorporating two offences, one FIR has been lodged. He has contended that for one offence, he and his writer have been shown as accused and for another incident, Mr.J. D. Katara has been shown as accused No.2 in the same case. According to him, at the relevant time, he was Dy. S. P., S.C./S.T. Cell, Palanpur and at that time, he was investigating one FIR which was registered as C.R.No.I-16 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 302, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Atrocity Act") and, thereafter, he has arrested the accused therein who is respondent No.2 herein was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deesa and he has prayed for remand, but the same was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. He has contended that respondent No.2 has applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. He has contended that during the pendency of the investigation, however, he fall ill, the same came to be handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after thorough investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 318 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act and as no offence was found to be committed by other eight accused, no charge-sheet was filed and, therefore, the further investigation was handed over to other police officer. He has contended that meanwhile, the trial of the said offence was commenced and respondent No.2 applied for bail before the High Court which came to be rejected by the High Court. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has filed an application through jail stating that during investigation, the present applicant has demanded bribe and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- and on that basis, the FIR came to be registered in April 2009. He has contended that during the investigation of such FIR relating to receiving the bribe amount, no evidence regarding mobile phone calls, tower location has been collected by the Investigating Officer and no panchnama, where Rs.60,000/- was paid, has been prepared by the Investigating Officer and no necessary evidence was collected and without collecting sufficient evidence, the charge-sheet has been filed against him for the alleged offence as narrated hereinabove. He has contended that even the statements of commando of the applicant as well as driver have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer and no scientific evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer. According to the applicant, in absence of such evidence, prima facie, it cannot be held that the applicant has demanded and accepted Rs.60,000/- as bribe amount from respondent No.2 herein, during the investigation of the earlier complaint for which re