IMPORTANT POINT
Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act require a pending official duty and a clear demand for gratification, which were not present in this case.

ORDER :

(Birendra Kumar, J.) :

1. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meel is aggrieved by refusal of prayer for discharge under Section 227 CrPC by order dated 01.06.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.16/2017. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge, after rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, has ordered for framing of charges under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120 B of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 10.09.2013, respondent No.2 Shubhash Kumar made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bikaner that on 30.08.2013, the complainant was carrying diesel on a truck. In the midway, the petitioner, an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer along with his driver and two others, stopped the vehicle and asked about what is there in the container. The complainant responded that he was carrying diesel. The petitioner asked for bill of purchase of the diesel which was not with the complainant. Then, the petitioner threatened him that since the complainant was engaged in illegal business he will seize his vehicle. On request of the complainant the petitioner let the vehicle go as the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- as bribe within a day or two. On 02.09.2013, as directed by the petitioner, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to Yogendra Rathi at Rajgarh. The petitioner had asked the complaint that if he wants to continue in the illegal trade of diesel, he would be required to pay Rs.30,000/- per month. Then the complainant on 10.09.2013 made a complaint to ACB, Bikaner and the Authorities of ACB organized a trap and trapped Yogendra Rathi along with Rs.30,000 which was put in an envelope thereat by the complainant. Yogendra Rathi stated that the complainant had given him money for giving it to the petitioner and on previous occasions also complainant/Shubhash had handed over Rs.50,000/-. The complainant had informed to Mr. Rathi that the money was for the vehicle. After investigation of FIR No.412/2013, registered with ACB, Jaipur, the police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons including the petitioner. Accordingly, the aforesaid session trial was registered before the Special Judge.

3. The petitioner challenged the first order of charge dated 18.01.2018 in S.B. Criminal Revision No.244/2018, which was heard by a Bench of this Court on 10.08.2021 and the matter was remitted back to the trial judge for passing fresh order with regard to the charge in relation to the present petitioner after an opportunity of hearing.

In Criminal Revision No.244/2018, the Bench has observed as follows:-

“However, even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the Court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting the prayer for discharge and in granting opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.”

4. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed. While issuing notice to the respondent, a Bench of this Court stayed the trial proceeding against the petitioner by order dated 12.04.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ingredients of none of the offences where under charges have been framed, are made out on bare perusal of the prosecution case and material collected during investigation.

Learned counsel contends that it is not disputed that the petitioner was posted as Commercial Tax Officer and it was not official business of the petitioner to check the vehicles which were found violating the requirements of the Essential Commodities Act. Only the authorities of supply department and th