P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Both the petitions are heard analogously and proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order. These petitions are directed against a common judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 3 of 2009 by which charge was framed against the accused petitioners under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short P.C. Act only) read with Section 120B, IPC.

2. The facts of the case which led to framing of charge against the accused petitioners are that one Sri N.G. Khamrang, Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), Guwahati lodged an FIR on 24.1.2009 with Superintendent of Police, CBI ACB stating inter alia that one Shri Bidhi Chand Dhiman, who was deputed as Nodal Officer to liaise with CBI relating to allegation of sub-standard construction/repairing of bye lanes by the NBCC requested him on 20.1.2009 to close the matter and induced to bribe the informant. The said B.C. Dhiman again came on 24.1.2009 at 11.45 a.m. to informant's office and made the same request to him. The accused-petitioner, Shri B.C. Dhiman induced to bribe Rs. 5 lacs for which he intended to come back to CBI office at Guwahati at 2 p.m. on the same day to hand over the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs. The informant informed the matter the CBI/ACB Guwahati Branch, Guwahati who registered a crime being RC. 2(A)/2009 GWH under Section 12 of the P.C. Act read with Section 120B, IPC and endorsed the case for investigation to one Sri Rohit Kapoor, Addl. S.P. CBI, ACB, Guwahati. After registration of the case the I.O. prepared a pre-trap memorandum in presence of witnesses and thereafter laid a trap to apprehend the accused petitioner Shri B.C. Dhiman, who came to informant's office and was caught red handed while offering bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the informant Sri N.G. Khamrang. The said events were also secretly filmed in video camera. The I.O. examined several witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr PC and submitted charge-sheet under Section 120B, IPC and Section 12 of the P.C. Act. The learned Special Judge on perusal and upon consideration of the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 framing charge against them under the said sections of law.

3. The prime accused, as projected by the prosecution is Shri B.C. Dhiman. The impugned order framing charge against the prime accused Shri Bidhi Chand Dhiman has been challenged mainly on the ground that the alleged confessional statements of the accused petitioner made before the police officer is not admissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as no confession, as per settled law, made to police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence and confession made by accused petitioner while in police custody should not be proved against him. Moreover a confession made by an accused to a police officer is protected under Section 162 of the Cr PC and Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The other ground taken by the accused petitioner Shri B.C. Dhiman is that the cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs allegedly seized by the CBI were never produced in the Court during the course of investigation nor any seal and signature of the Court was obtained on it which is mandatory on the part of the I.O. to immediately produce the case property before the Court during investigation of the case. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is argued by Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the investigation was conducted by the I.O. was perfunctory in nature inasmuch as the I.O. did not make any prayer before the Court for recording his statements under Section 164, Cr PC. Although the accused person was produced before the Magistrate which clearly belies the prosecution story as held by this Court in Danti Ram Reang v. State of Tripura, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 538.

4. In my considered view, the above grounds are not sustai