The absence of evidence of demand or request for illegal gratification is fatal to a prosecution under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. Brief facts which require to be considered for adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as an RAS Officer in the year 1979 and was promoted as an IAS Officer in the year 2012. He was posted as Chief Executive Officer of Jaipur Nagar Nigam on 16th February, 2014 and under his administration, the Jaipur Nagar Nigam was awarded the best Municipal Corporation in garbage management and in improving the living environment.

2. On 11th August, 2014, an FIR was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau wherein it was stated that an information was received that one Purshottam Jeswani posted as Executive Engineer in Jaipur Nagar Nigam takes files of the tenders of civil works to be executed by him from the Accounts Department and gets them approved from the Chief Executive Officer and towards obtaining such approvals collects commission from the various contractors. It was also mentioned that on 10th August, 2014, Shri Jeswani would go to the house of Chief Executive Officer for getting approval of the files. On the said source of information around 8.00 AM, the car of Shri Purshottam Jeswani was checked wherein 46 files were found and cash amount was also found. Shri Jeswani was taken by the Police Officials to the ACB Police Station and petitioner was subsequently arrested on 26th September, 2014. A charge sheet was filed and later on two supplementary charge sheets were also filed by the ACB authorities naming the petitioner as a co-accused alleging offence committed under Sections 8, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC. There was no allegation as against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the charge sheet but only the allegation levelled against him was under Sections 8, 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 1, Jaipur vide order dated 21st November, 2014 under Sections 8, 13(1)(d)(e), 13(2), 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition assailing the criminal proceedings and the cognizance order dated 21st November, 2014.

3. Learned counsel submits that entire proceedings initiated are gross abuse of the process of the court. It is submitted that from the charge sheet itself, it cannot be said that a case for offence under Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) or under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that neither car was seized from the petitioner's residence nor files were found at the petitioner's residence. It is further submitted that Shri Purshottam Jeswani was an Executive Engineer and the files were recovered from his car while he was travelling on the road. The allegations that files were being brought by Shri Purshottam Jeswani to the petitioner's residence were also not proved by any witness and is solely based on statement of Shri Purshottam Jeswani.

4. The cash which was recovered from the possession of Shri Purshottam Jeswani has been claimed by Shri Purshottam Jeswani to be his own personal amount. While filing bail application before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 1, Jaipur, Shri Purshottam Jeswani has stated that amount of Rs. 15 lac which was recovered from his possession was his own and received through legal sources. He has also stated that he was pressurized to mention the name of petitioner who was Chief Executive Officer of Jaipur Nagar Nigam and that amount had been received by way of commission from the contractors although it was not true.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has taken this court through the charge sheet and submitted that none of the so-called contractors was