In a case under anti-corruption law, the testimony of the complainant is crucial for proving the charge against an accused person, and no other witness who can corroborate the version of the decoy can be treated as of sterling worth in the absence of the testimony of the decoy.

P.K. Lohra, J.

By the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No.342/2015, registered at Central Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, qua him, for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'). The petitioner has also craved for restraining the investigating agency from conducting further investigation into the impugned FIR and not to take coercive action against him.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner, while working in Agricultural Marketing Board as Accounts Officer Grade-II in the substantive capacity was entrusted additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer Grade-I on account of administrative exigencies. An order to this effect was passed on 7th of October, 2014 and pursuant thereto, petitioner assumed charge on 14th of October, 2014. Although, the petitioner was having additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer Grade-I, but then this position itself did not invested him with any power to condone delay in execution of work by a contractor so as to absolve him from penalty, and power to this effect continued to remain with Superintending Engineer, Agricultural Marketing Board, Sri Ganganagar. It so happened that fourth respondent complainant got a letter issued from the office of Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Anoopgarh and when the same was placed before petitioner, it was marked to the concerned clerk. By the aforesaid letter dated 6th of October, 2015, the Executive Engineer recommended for extension of time to the fourth respondent, who is proprietor of M/s. Kamal & Co., contractor. In due course of time, the letter of Executive Engineer was examined by the Superintending Engineer and extension was granted to the fourth respondent-complainant. During the extended period, work was completed and final payment was also released to the fourth respondent-contractor. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that for extension of time in completion of work by the complainant he was neither involved at any stage nor he was competent to grant extension and as such the attempt made by fourth respondent to entangle him in the entire episode is wholly unfounded. It is also averred in the petition by the petitioner that though complainant was not at all keen to implicate him in commission of any offence, but he was instigated by certain vested interests to involve him and that led to filing of a complaint with the A.C.B., inter-alia, alleging therein that petitioner has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for getting the work done.

3. It appears that some alleged conversation between petitioner and fourth respondent was recorded and on that basis a case is registered against him for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. As per version of the petitioner, the FIR nowhere discloses any demand made by him nor any amount was paid to him. Furthermore, as per petitioner, no work of complainant was pending with him, and therefore, it was a clear case of his false implication in the matter. After registration of the case, petitioner made sincere endeavour to apprise Inspector General of Police, A.C.B., Rajasthan to furnish certain information under the Right to Information Act but no information was divulged to him. Be that as it may, some of the subsequent events, having direct ramification on the subject matter, are also pleaded by petitioner for the reliefs craved for in the petition.

4. As a matter of fact, the complainant submitted a letter to Inspector General of Police, A.C.B., Rajasthan, with his affidavit withdrawing all the pejoratives he has hurled against the petitioner. In his affidavit, complainant clarified that he did not talk to petitioner in connection with extension of time for completion of his work and the so called recorded tape is with some other incumbent, therefore, he is not interested