Point of Law: Investigating officer is arm of law and plays pivotal role in dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order.

JUDGMENT :

1. In impugnment, is the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Bikaner whereby the learned trial court while framing charges against the petitioner, he has been directed to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act") and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter to be referred to as the "IPC") in sessions case bearing no. 7/2016 titles as State of Rajasthan versus Lalchand Soni and others. The said case arises out F.I.R. No. 252/2015 registered at Police Choki A.C.B. (special unit), Police Station C.P.S., A.C.B., Jaipur.

2. The genesis of the present discord is traceable to the first information report being FIR No. 252/2015 dated 14.09.2015 lodged by Vinod Kumar Kumawat alleging inter alia that he is an electrical contractor working in the name and style of Dev Infrastructure, Jaipur. On 03.09.2014, he was awarded a work order by the U.I.T. Bikaner for installation of high mast lights at various locations in Bikaner city. He had completed the work by the month of June 2015. On completion, the work done by him was recorded in the measurement book (M.B.) and after calculating the rates, the first and final bill was prepared which was checked by the engineers of the U.I.T. and was sent to the accounts branch. When complainant met to petitioner who was working as accountant in the U.I.T., regarding the payment of the bill, petitioner demanded a commission of 4% of the total bill amount as bribe, otherwise threatened to delay the payment on objections to be raised by him.

3. After receiving the said complaint, the telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded and on 18.09.2015, Mohammed Ashiq was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.60,000 for the petitioner.

4. Further details being unnecessary at this stage, it would be suffice to state that on the basis of these allegations the aforementioned F.I.R. was registered and was taken up for investigation. On the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under sections 7, 8, and 13(1) D and 13 (2) of the Act and section 120 B of the IPC.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner herein filed an application under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court, stating therein that the documents which have been obtained by the petitioner from the U.I.T. Bikaner under Right to Information Act, does not match with the documents so submitted by the prosecution with the charge-sheet. Prayer was made for taking those documents on record. This application came to be rejected by the learned trial court on 02.08.2021 observing that during the course of argument on the point of framing of charges, the petitioner may rely upon the certified copies of the documents obtained by him from the U.I.T.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein filed S.B. criminal miscellaneous petition number 4463/2021 before this court and this court disposed of the said petition vide order dated 27.08.2021 with giving liberty to bring to the attention of the court to the certified copies of the documents.

7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the prosecution sanction order dated 31.03.2016 was also challenged by the petitioner herein in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 2095/2016 alleging inter alia that the final bill was prepared on 16.10.2015 while the trap was managed on 18.09.2015 which, as per him, shows that it was pre planned. Prosecution sanction was issued without considering the facts and without application of mind. This court vide order dated 21.11.2016 disposed of said petition observing that the said issue can be raised by the petitioner at the stage of charge arguments before the trial court and it is expected from the trial court that same be considered as per