JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.M Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Assam and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C read with section 397 and section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed assailing an order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Spl. Case No.5/2021, whereby a petition filed under section 319 of the Cr.P.C seeking the respondent No.2 to be arrayed as an accused was rejected on the ground that the respondent No.2 is a whistle blower and his statements are protected under section 24 of the PC Act, 1988.

3. The background facts in which the aforesaid application was filed can be summarized as follows:

I. The respondent No.2 on 17.08.2017 lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhangagarh police station with the following allegations:

a. The respondent No.2 was a candidate for appointment to the post of Agricultural Development Officer, Examination for which was conducted by Assam Public Service Commission;

b. Though the respondent No.2 cleared the written examination held in the year 2014 but was unsuccessful in oral examination and the reason is that one Rakesh Kr. Paul who was the Chairman of APSC and his agent one Musharaf Hussain has asked Rs. 15,00,000/- as bribe.

c. The respondent No.2 apprehends that both the aforesaid accused conspired together and by taking Rs.15,00,000 from other candidates selected them for the post.

d. The respondent No.2 also paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-as advance to the aforesaid accused person at Satsanga Bihar as he came to learn that the appointments are given in APSC by taking bribe.

e. As the respondent No.2 had doubt regarding the result, he filed one RTI application and came to learn that a reserved category candidate i.e, the petitioner herein scored 78 marks whereas, in an another RTI reply filed by other person it was shown that the said Mrigen Haloi (the petitioner herein) scored 80. Accordingly, the FIR was filed.

II. On the basis of such FIR, Bhangagarh PS case No.159/2017 under section 120(B)/420/468 IPC read with section 7/13(1)(a)(d) PC Act was registered and investigation was conducted.

III. After completion of the investigation charges were laid wherein the present petitioner amongst others were made accused.

IV. During the trial, the respondent No.2, who is the informant, was examined as PW-8. The important testimonies of the PW-8 (respondent No.2) which are necessary for determination of the present litigation are summarized as follows:

a. PW-8 passed B.Sc agriculture in the year 2007.

b. On 05.04.2013 an advertisement for selection of 80 post of ADO was issued and he applied for it.

c. On 04.05.2014 screening test was held and he was selected for viva voce.

d. On 05.08.2015 viva voce was taken and viva voce of the PW-8 was taken by one Basanta Kr. Doley and the Departmental expert.

e. The petitioner Mrigen Haloi also appeared for viva voce on the same date.

f. On a query, the petitioner intimated the respondent No.2 that whole scheme of things was centered around managing the selection process by payment of money.

g. Another candidate Mukul Deka informed him that whole selection process is tainted with payment of cash for job. The said Mukul Deka also informed the respondent No.2 that one Musharaf Hussain can secure the job for candidate on payment of Rs.15,00,000 in a single installment.

h. After getting such information the respondent No.2 requested said Mukul Deka to introduce him to Musharaf Hussain.

i. In the month of October, 2015, as per instruction he came from Tezpur to Satsanga Bihar, Guwahati and met said Musharaf Hussain along with Mukul Deka.

j. Musharaf Hussain told him that he would have to pay Rs.15,00,000/- for securing the job.

k. At around 4.20 pm Rakesh Kr. Paul arrived at Satsanga Bihar, he went inside the room where Rakesh Kr.