IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was emphasized.

ORDER :

1. Both the petitioners above named are accused in Sessions Case No. 1/2017 arising out of FIR No. 321/2014 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Sriganganagar. The petitioners are aggrieved by refusal of their prayer, by the learned trial Judge, to discharge them by order 9.02.2018 and framing of charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Respondent no. 2 Kashi Ram filed a complaint before ACB, Sriganganagar stating therein that respondent no. 2/complainant was a driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding and punishment was to be awarded against him by the Chief Manager of the Department where proceeding was pending. The complainant appeared before the Chief Manager Sukhram Kadwasara (co-accused). Petitioner Om Prakash was a Lower Division Clerk working in the office of General Manager. The complainant met Om Prakash, who after going through the records of the departmental proceedings talked to the Chief Manager and informed to the complainant that if the complainant pays Rs.22,000/-, lessor punishment would be awarded in the departmental proceeding otherwise there is chances of dismissal.

3. Since the complainant was not agreeable to bribe the public servants, he made a complaint on 11.9.2014 to the DSP of ACB Bikaner. A primary inquiry of such demand was made and on 12.9.2014 trap was arranged. The officials reached the office of petitioner Om Prakash. The planted money of Rs.22,000/- in different denomination was presented to Om Prakash in his office and Om Prakash directed the complainant to pay it to petitioner Anil Kumar, who was also a lower division clerk newly recruited and was sitting by the side of the table of Om Prakash. Money was received by petitioner Anil and Anil put it in his pocket. The authorities arrested Anil and Om Prakash at the spot. Petitioner Anil stated that he had received the money on the instruction of Om Prakash available there and he is not aware for what purpose money was given. He further stated that no work of the complainant was pending with him. During investigation, evidence of trap witnesses was recorded and on completion of other formalities, charge sheet was submitted after sanction of the competent authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. HS Sidhu submits that the order of charge has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind on the material available on record. It is complainant’s case, which would be evident from the charge sheet that first he met Mr. Sukhram, the General Manager before whom the matter was pending. Mr. Sukhram threatened to dismiss him. Thereafter, Mr. Sukhram called Om Prakash and asked the complainant to go out. After some time, Om Prakash came out and put the demand before the complainant. Therefore, no work of the complainant was pending before petitioner Om Prakash or petitioner Anil. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance of judgment on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutt Vs. State (Government of NCT, Delhi), decided on 17.3.2023, after answer of the reference by the Constitution Bench in the same matter.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that a raving inquiry is not permissible at this stage nor evidentiary value can be weighed. Since demand was made by petitioner Om Prakash and he accepted the bribe money through petitioner Anil with intent to assist another public servant before whom work of the complainant was pending, the order of charge need not be interfered with.

6. It is settled law that at the stage of charge, the Court has to see whether prima facie offences are made out whereunder charges are to be framed. To examine this fact, only prosecution material collected during investigation is to be looked into and not the material placed by the defence. If the prosecution material raises strong suspi