The absence of evidence for bribery and corruption led to the quashment of the FIR, emphasizing the necessity of substantiating allegations in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 217/2016 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Police Station District Jaipur for offences under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120-B of the IPC.

2. The challenge is on the ground that ingredients of none of the offences for which FIR has been registered are made out and the criminal prosecution is abuse of the process of law.

3. The prosecution case is that the informer of the Anti Corruption Bureau reported to its Inspector Vikram Singh that officers of SPML Infra company in collusion with officers of PHED Department of the Government are acting in corrupt manner to provide undue benefit to the company. Thereafter, mobile No. 9414043976 of Mr. Keshav Gupta, Vice President of SPML Company and Mobile No. 9711308200 of Mr. Rishab Setty, the Managing Director of the said Company were put on surveillance and what was gathered from the talk between the two, on the very next day i.e. 19.7.2016, Mr. Akashdeep Totla and Mr. Praful Moreshwar Sontake, both the employees of the company aforesaid, were put on vigil. The team of ACB noticed that Akashdeep Totla had given a white packet to Mr. Praful Moreshwar Sontake and Moreshwar took the same on the referred four wheeler. The ACB team followed the vehicle and the vehicle stopped near the house of the petitioner and a man came out of the house. He was intercepted by the ACB Team, the man disclosed his name as Praful Moreshwar Sontake and introduced himself as an officer of SPML Company. On search, nothing was recovered from the physical possession. However, Praful Moreshwar Sontake disclosed that he had handed over the packet to the petitioner inside his house. When the team went inside the house, the packet was recovered within the shoe rack and the packet was containing Rs. 5 lacs. Praful Moreshwar Sontake admitted that he had given the money to the petitioner. On search another packet of Rs. 5 lacs was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Rs. 10 lacs was further found in the vehicle of Praful Moreshwar and Praful Moreshwar stated that the money was to be paid to Mr. R.K. Meena, the Chief Engineer of PHED Department. The ACB Team suspected that just to provide undue benefit to the company, the officers of PHED Department were being bribed to cause wrongful loss to the public propoerty and revenue. During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Engineer in the Department of PHED.

4. Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the investigation of the case is already complete and uptil now there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner had demanded or received any bribe money. Moreover, nothing has been bought on record to show that any matter of the company was pending with the petitioner to allege that the recovered money was for the purpose of showing any undue help by the petitioner to the company. Learned counsel contends that the work assigned to the petitioner in PHED Department was to monitor statistical data and progress report of various projects ongoing in the State of Rajasthan. The decision as regards issuing tender, award of contract, acceptance of tender was being done by separate committees constituted for the purpose. Learned counsel next contends that Annex.8 is a letter of the Anti Corruption Bureau stating therein that the cash recovered from the house of the petitioner were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. Learned counsel next contends that the statement made by a co-accused to the Anti Corruption Bureau while in police custody cannot be considered against the petitioner. Even in that statement, the co-accused has not stated anything that any matter was pending with the petitioner or petitioner was requested to ensure undue help to the company by some other authorities. Learned counsel submits that a co-ordinate bench of this Court ha