This revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta assailing the Judgment dated 21.2.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Anti Corruption Act, Kota in sessions case no. 10/2005 whereby the trial court while acquitting the accused Hemraj Nagar who was facing trial, has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short as ‘Act of 1988’), and ordered to call him by way of warrant of arrest.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the relevant record.

3. On perusal of the record, facts in brief of the case transpire as follows:

FACTS IN BRIEF

The complainant Rameshwar Shrangi (PW-10) lodged a report in the office of Addl. S.P., ACB, Kota against the then Executive Engineer, PWD, Kota stating that Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta was demanding bribe from him for making balance payment of Rs.1,70,868/-. He wants to get Mr. Gupta trapped. After adopting due process, a trap was conducted and amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of cashier Hemraj Nagar who told that he had received this money on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed only against Hemraj Nagar. Trial was conducted and vide judgment dated 21.2.2018, Hemraj Nagar was acquitted from the charges levelled against him, but cognizance was taken against the present petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised many pleas in regard to the order impugned whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. His first argument is that there was no prosecution sanction issued qua the petitioner for proceeding against him for the offences punishable under the Act of 1988. In this regard, he has drawn attention of this court to page no.23 of the Judgment impugned, wherein it has been observed as under:-

^^23- blds vykok vkjksi i= ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh tkfgj gksrk gS fd gsejkt ukxj ds fo:) ih0M03 ghjkyky eh.kk us vfHk;kstu Lohd`rh tkjh dh] rFkk v:.k dqekj xqIrk ds fo:) jkT; ljdkj us vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh dh] ysfdu jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k Øekad i- 2¼2½42¼dk@d&3@f'k@02 fnukad 31-3-2004 ,oa vkns'k Øekad i- 2¼2½42¼dk@d&3@f'k@02 fnukad 17-1-2005 }kjk tkjh vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr foMªkW dj yh x;hA ------------------------------------------------**

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that cognizance has been taken by the learned court below vide judgment dated 21.2.2018 in regard to the offences which are said to have taken place on 27.3.2002. A long delay of almost 16 years is very much prejudicial to the defence which could have been taken by the accused petitioner. After this long distance of time, cognizance could not have been taken. He has also contended that the powers under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. under which cognizance has been taken are to be exercised very sparingly and in extra ordinary circumstances, but this is not a situation in this case. He further contends that the learned trial court has exercised this power while deciding the case pending against the main accused Hemraj Nagar. This is not the proper stage to take cognizance under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. This power could have been exercised only during the pendency of the trial against the accused facing trial. He further contends that looking to the evidence available on record, there was no justification to take cognizance against the present petitioner. Hence the order impugned qua the petitioner is without any substance and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that in the FIR, specific allegation was made against the petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta. Money recovered from Hemraj Nagar was taken by him at the instance and on behalf of Arun Kumar Gupta. In fact he was the real culprit aga