1. - The instant criminal miscellaneous application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred to quash the FIR No. 331/2001, P.S. CPS, SB, Jaipur dated 10.9.2001 under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short "the Act" hereinafter) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioner.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that one Mr. Rajesh Solanki made a complaint to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Jodhpur regarding demand of money by the petitioner for giving correct report of injured Shantilal pertaining to FIR No. 193/01, P.S. Mandore, Jodhpur dated 2001. The said complaint was made on 5.9.2001. The FIR in extenso is quoted as under:

"Jheku~ th]

,Mh0,l0ih0,0lh0Mh0 tks/kiqjA
fo"k;%& esfMdy T;wfj"V o muds lgk;d ,e0th0,p0 tks/kiqj }kjk fj'or dh ekWax ds lEcU/k esaA egksn; th] fuosnu gS fd esjh gksVy tks/kk jh <+k.kh ds eSustj ij tku ysok geys esa eqdnek ua0 193@2001 Fkkuk e.Mksj esa fnukad 1-9-2001 dks ntZ gqvkA eSustj 'kkfUryky dh ,e0,y0lh0 fjiksVZ ckcr eSa ,e0th0,p0 MkWa0,u0,l0 dksBkjh ls tkdj dy feyk vkSj muls ckr dj dgk fd esjs eSustj dh fjiksVZ vki iqfyl Fkkus esa lgh&lgh fHktok,a] bl ij mUgksaus dgk fd lgh fjiksVZ o tYnh fHktok nwaxk ysfdu [kpkZ djuk iM+sxk vkSj mUgksaus esjs ls rhu gtkj :i;s dh ekax dh rc eSusa muls iSls de djus dks dgk rks mUgksaus dgk ykLV 2]000@& (nks gtkj :i;s) yxsaxsa vxj gks rks esjs lgk;d jktsUnz fxjh dks ns nks fjiksVZ es lgh o tYnh fHktok nwaxkA eSa uktk;t :i;s ugha nsuk pkgrk sgwaA izkFkZuk&i= is'k gSa dk;Zokgh djkosaA fnukad 5-9-2001A"

3. As per complaint, a trap was laid on 6.9.2001 and co-accused Rajendra Giri was trapped and tainted money of Rs. 2,000/- was recovered from him. After recovery of money and completion of the formalities a un-numbered FIR was sent to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jaipur, which was registered as FIR No. 331/2001 on 10.9.2001. Thereafter, the Anti Corruption Bureau started investigation, arrested the petitioner and released on bail on 6.9.2001.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following contentions:-

(1) That the money was not recovered from the petitioner, though, the complainant stated in FIR that the money was demanded by the petitioner, but the Investigating Officer trapped co-accused Rajendra Giri and the money was recovered from him. The Investigating Officer did not wait for handing over the said money by Rajendra Giri to the petitioner. If that would have been done, the inference could have been taken that the money was demanded by the petitioner.

(2) That the case was registered on 1.9.2001 and the injured Shantilal was examined on 3.9.2001. The petitioner was not on duty either on 1.9.2001 or on 2.9.2001 to prepare the injury report. On 3.9.2001, the injured came and his wound was already stitched. There was only one single injury on his person and that too was simple in nature. The Medico Legal Report was prepared then and there and was signed by the petitioner. The report was also written in the register kept in the hospital and it was entered in duplicate. It was the responsibility of the concerned clerk to send the said M.L.C. report to the concerned Police Station and it was also the duty of the concerned Police Station to collect it from the hospital. But, a requisition letter from the concerned Police Station was received on 7.9.2001 for getting the MLC Report, which was already prepared on 3.9.2001. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no question to take demand money from the complainant on 4.9.2001 (as stated in the complaint using the word

(3) That on 4.9.2001, no work was pending with the petitioner and there was no motive or occasion to demand the money for taking favour the complainant particularly, in view of the nature of the injury.

(4) That once, the injury report was singed on 3.9.2001, there was no question of demand of money as there were no chances of chang