JUDGMENT :

Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 352 dated 20.12.2028 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Police Station for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. As per FIR, the petitioner was Assistant Drug Controller on the date of incident. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- from complainant Kuldeep Singh for renewal of his expired drug licence. Kuldeep Singh made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 11.12.2019. The Anti Corruption Bureau confidentially verified the allegation of Kuldeep Singh on 17.12.2018. Conversation between the petitioner and Kuldeep was taken on record and the authorities decided to have a trap of the petitioner. Different notes of Rs. 500/- denomination total Rs. 20,000/- were put under Sodium Carbonate and other chemicals and the petitioner was caught while accepting bribe on 19.12.2018. After completion of investigation, the authorities obtained sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said sanction order dated 23.6.2021 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that last paragraph of the sanction order would reveal that no work of the complainant was directly pending before the petitioner. There is no evidence of direct demand of 50,000/- by the petitioner. However, since the trap money was recovered from the petitioner and petitioner had no reasonable explanation for that, therefore, prima facie, offence was made out and accordingly, sanction to prosecute was accorded. Learned counsel on the basis of aforesaid statement in the sanction order, contends that in spite of no evidence of demand and no work of the complainant directly pending with the petitioner, sanction to prosecute has been granted without application of mind on mere conjunctures and surmises. Mere recovery would not attract the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. Mr. Atul Sharma, Dy.G.A., for the respondents contends that even acceptance of bribe is punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and statement of complainant Kuldeep Singh that there was demand of bribe by the petitioner has not been taken note of by the sanctioning authority, therefore, it cannot be argued that there was no material for grant of sanction nor it can be argued that offence under Section 7 of the Act is not made out. Moreover, the meticulous appreciation regarding sufficiency of material to grant sanction would be considered at the appropriate stage of the trial and not at this stage.

5. Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act is clear enough that when a public servant obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly shall be punishable under this Section. In the case on hand, there is material that the petitioner had accepted bribe money, therefore, clear offence under Section 7 of the Act was made out for grant of sanction to prosecute.

6. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law in this regard as follows:

"19. The court must examine whether the issue raised regarding failure of justice is actually a failure of justice in the true sense or whether it is only a camouflage argument. The expression 'failure of justice' is an extremely pliable or facile an expression which can be made to fit into any case. The court must endeavour to find out the truth. There would be 'failure of justice' not only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of the guilty as a result of unjust or negligent failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and safeguarded but they should not be over emphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have certain rights. It h