The knowledge and involvement of an individual in illegal activities, even without direct participation, can lead to liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore, prayed that the misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases) Udaipur dated 25.06.2014 in Criminal Regular Case No. 37/2011 may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharged from the offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."

3. The facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that one Mr. Naru Lal, filed an F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 314/2008 before the ACB Chowki, Udaipur, stating that when he sought to collect pending payments, for works already completed by him, from the Panchayat Samiti, Kumbalgarh, and that during his meetings with the concerned B.D.O. and the Pradhan of the said Panchayat Samiti for the same, an illegal demand of a bribe for Rs. 22,000/- was made from him. And that, after filing of the F.I.R., the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police arranged trap proceedings, wherein on audio tapes it was ascertained that the B.D.O. was in fact demanding and taking bribes in connection with release of the pending payments of the complainant Mr. Naru Lal. And that, subsequently, the A.C.B. submitted a charge sheet against the said B.D.O. and the petitioner, who is a Junior Engineer (under suspension).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur seeking to be discharged from any liability, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 37/2011, arising out of the F.I.R. No. 314/2008 stating that there was not an iota of evidence against the petitioner and that the Additional Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur passed an order, dated 25.06.2014, wherein a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC was found to be made out, and accordingly, the said application was rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments;

(a) 2012 (9) SCC 257 Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja;

(b) Govind Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan (Cri. Misc. Petition No. 989/2017, decided by this Hon'ble Court on 11.05.2017);

(c) Ms. Shreya Jha v. CBI, (S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 584/2006 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 28.05.2007;

(d) State of Raj. v. Keshav Dev & Anr., RLR 1999(2) 414; (Raj.) and

(e) 2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 778 State of Rajasthan v. Narayan Lal & Anr.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that the impugned order, dated 25.06.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur has been passed after rightly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present case and on the finding that the petitioner was working closely with the concerned B.D.O. and was in charge of handling of the day to day affairs regarding construction matters of the Panchayat Samiti, and that prima facie a case against the petitioner under the aforementioned provisions of law was rightly made out by the learned Court below.

7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case and judgments cited at the Bar.

8. This Court observes that the impugned order, dated 25.06.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur is a well reasoned and speaking order, which has been passed after taking into due consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order lays out clear and cogent reasoning in arriving at the conclu